Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA041431: Review Operational Readiness Float (ORF) Concept."

See other formats


F/®  15/5 


AO- A 041  *31  ARMY  LOGISTICS  EVALUATION  A6ENCY  NEW  CUMBERLAND  PA 

REVIEW  OPERATIONAL  READINESS  FLOAT  (ORF)  CONCEPT. <U> 

JUN  77  R J ASTOR*  R M ShEAFFER 
UNCLASSIFIED  Z60144  NL 


* 


♦ 


/IDA  041  4 


■ 


Review 


Operational  Readiness  Float 
(ORF) 

Concept 


Department  of  the  Army 
Office  of  the  Deputy  Chief  of  Staff  for  Logistics 


U.  S.  Army  Logistics  Evaluation  Agency 
New  Cumberland,  Pennsylvania.  17070  y 


D 


JUNE  1977 


Description  of  the  Publishing  Agency 

The  U.S.  Army  Logistics  Evaluation  Agency  (USALEA),  New  Cumberland  Army  Depot, 
New  Cumberland,  Pennsylvania,  was  officially  redesignated  as  the  successor  organization  to 
the  U.S.  Army  Logistics  Doctrine,  Systems  and  Readiness  Agency  (USALDSRA)on  1 July  1973. 
A Staff  Support  Agency  of  the  Deputy  Chief  of  Staff  for  Logistics,  Department  of  the  Army  (DA 
DCSLOG),  USALEA  is  functionally  organized  into  three  divisions:  Logistic  Policy,  Plans  and 
Forces  Division,  Logistic  Operations  and  Readiness  Division,  Integrated  Logistic  Support 
Division.  The  overall  mission  of  USALEA  is  to  assist  DA  DCSLOG  in  the  execution  of  his  general 
staff  responsibilities  for  development  and  supervision  of  the  Army  logistics  organization  and 
system.  The  following  are  specific  missions: 

a.  Assist  the  DCSLOG  in  providing  logistic  master  planning  and  guidance  in  the  form  of 
policies,  principles,  concepts,  objectives,  and  priorities  to  all  elements  of  the  Army. 

b.  Assist  the  DCSLOG  in  review  and  validation  of  logistic  analyses  by  application  of  opera- 
tions research  and  systems  analysis  (OR/SA)  techniques. 

c.  Assist  the  DCSLOG  in  the  evaluation  of  the  logistic  portion  of  contingency  plans. 

d.  Assist  the  DCSLOG  in  developing  HQDA  logistic  operating  and  management  informa- 
tion systems. 

e.  Plan  tor  and  assist  the  DCSLOG  in  providing  central  direction  and  control  of  the  develop- 
ment and  maintenance  of  the  Army  logistic  system. 

f.  Assist  the  DCSLOG  in  maintaining  surveillance  ever  logistic  organizations  and  systems. 
Army-wide,  to  assure  logistic  readiness. 

g.  Participate  as  the  logistician  in  the  materiel  acquisition  process. 

h.  Assist  the  OCSLOG  in  the  development  and  evaluation  of  the  ILS  program. 


SECURITY  CLASSIFICATION  OF  THIS  PAGE  (When  Data  Entered) 

~ REPORT  DOCUMENTATION  PAGE  bke^k^^et.no^rm 

I . PQRX  NUMBER  |2.  GOVT  ACCESSION  NO.  3 RECIPIENT'S  CATSLOG  NUMBER 


I TlCpgRX  HUMBER  2. 

Zbk?T  44 

4.  TITLE  (and  S le) 

Revieu  operational  Readiness 
Float  (ORF)  Concept 


5 TYPC  OF  REPORT  a PERIOD  COVERED 

Final 


6.  PERFORMING  ORG.  REPORT  NUMBER 


7-  AUTHORfF) 

1 Raymond  J./Astor 

Robert  M. /Sheaffer 


8.  CONTRACT  OR  GRANT  NUMBERfs) 


9 PERFORMING  ORGANIZATION  NAME  AND  ADDRESS  10.  PROGRAM  ELEMENT,  PROJECT,  TASK 

Department  of  the  Army,  Office  of  the  Dep-  area  * work  unit  numbers 

uty  Chief  of  Staff  for  Logistics,  U.S.  Army 
Logistics  Evaluation  Agency,  New  Cumberland , Z60144 

-DA 17Q70 

II.  CONTROLLING  OFFICE  NAME  AND  ADDRESS  U.  REPORT  DATE 

Department  of  the  Army,  Office  of  the  Dep-  Jun«  1377 

uty  Chief  of  Staff  for  Logistics,  Director  ^'‘VnuarpViF papes 

of  Supply  & Maintenance,  WASH,  DC  20  310  number  or  pages 

- 8 — — 

U.  MONITORING  AGENCY  NAME  ft  ADDRESS  (If  different  from  Controlling  Office)  15.  SECURITY  CLASS,  (of  thia  report) 


15  a DECLASSIFICATION  DOWNGRADING 
SCHEDULE 

16.  DISTRIBUTION  STATEMENT  (of  thla  Report) 

Approved  for  public  release;  distribution  unlimited. 


[ 17.  DISTRIBUTION  STATEMENT  (of  the  abatract  entered  In  Block  20,  If  different  from  Report) 


18.  SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


I 19.  KEY  WORDS  (Continue  on  reverae  aide  If  necesaary  and  Identify  by  block  number) 


Operational  Readiness  Float 
Maintenance  Float 


20.  ABSTRACT  CCartifnue  an  rereraa  aicta  ft  nac  earn  ary  and  Identify  by  block  number) 

As  a result  of  General  Accounting  Office  (GAO)  and  Army  Audit 
Agency  (AAA)  reports,  HQDA  (DALO-SMZ-A)  tasked  the  US  Army  Logis- 
tics Evaluation  Agency  (USALEA)  to  review  ORF  policy  and  update 
authorization  criteria  for  Active  Army,  Reserve  and  National  Guard 
units.  The  review  encompasses  all  commodities  except  aircraft, 
medical  and  fixed  communications-electronic  equipment  operated  by 


DO  ,^**73  1473  EDITION  OF  I NOV  65  IS  OBSOLETE 


(Continued) 


SECURITY  CLASSIFICATION  OF  THIS  PAGE  rWhen  Data  Entered) 


SECURITY  CLASSIFICATION  OF  This  PAGEllFhen  Da la  Entered) 


Block  20.  Abstract  (Continued) 

the  US  Army  Communications  Command  and/or  US  Army  Security  Agency. 
The  specific  objectives  addressed  herein  are  the  determination  of: 

1.  The  most  effective  criteria  for  selection  of  items  to  be 
provided  ORF  support. 

2.  The  most  effective  criteria  for  establishment  of  program 
(wartime)  and  distribution  (peacetime)  requirements  and  authorized 
levels  of  ORF  stockage  for  Active  Army,  Reserve  and  National  Guard 
units . 

3.  Changes  required  to  existing  regulations  to  provide  a 
viable  ORF  policy. 


ABSTRACT 


REVIEW  OPERATIONAL  READINESS 
FLOAT  (ORF)  CONCEPT 


As  a result  of  General  Accounting  Office  (GAO)  and  Army 
Audit  Agency  (AAA)  reports,  HQDA  (DALO-SMZ-A)  tasked  the 
US  Army  Logistics  Evaluation  Agency  (USALEA)  to  review 
ORF  policy  and  update  authorization  criteria  for  Active 
Army,  Reserve  and  National  Guard  units.  The  review 
encompasses  all  commodities  except  aircraft,  medical  and 
fixed  communications-electronic  equipment  operated  by  the 
US  Army  Communications  Command  and/or  US  Army  Security 
Agency.  The  specific  objectives  addressed  herein  are  the 
determination  of: 

° The  most  effective  criteria  for  selection  of  items 
to  be  provided  ORF  support. 

° The  most  effective  criteria  for  establishment  of 
program  (wartime)  and  distribution  (peacetime)  require- 
ments and  authorized  levels  of  ORF  stockage  for  Active 
Army,  Reserve  and  National  Guard  units. 

° Changes  required  to  existing  regulations  to  provide 
a viable  ORF  policy. 


ICCfSJI » 1* 

-i  r 

■Tit 

PD5 

liti  trnm  G 

lift.' •.'•r;  jem 

□ 

j • ri;  '•••  '4 

i 

i 

i rv  

< . , 

*.»  •v.lt*  ccan 

D 


n 


ULl^c  . 


Dlbfl'u;--"  i (ii  Blank) 

Apr  v'-  j 

Du...  . 


i 


r 


I 

i 


( 


i 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


Paragraph 


ABSTRACT  

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 


/• 


CHAPTER  2. 


CHAPTER  3. 


CHAPTER  4 . 


CHAPTER  5. 


INTRODUCTION 

Problem  

Assumptions  

Facts  Bearing  on  the  Problem  . 

ORF  ITEM  SELECTION  CRITERIA 

Discussion  

Conclusions  

Recommendations  

ORF  FOR  GENERAL  SUPPORT  FORCES 

Discussion  

Conclusions  

Recommendations  


I'SAR  t»  ARNG  ORF  REQUIREMENTS 

Discussion  

Conclusions  

Recommendations  

DATA  NEEDED  TO  UPDATE  ORF  FACTORS 

Discussion  

Conclusions  

Recommendations  


1-1 

1-2 

1-3 


2-1 

2-2 

2-3 


3-1 

3-2 

3-3 


4-1 

4-2 

4-3 


5-1 

5-2 

5-3 


CHAPTER  6.  ADEQUACY  OF  OR!'  REQUIREMENT  IN  REFLECTING 

REAL  NEEDS  AND  NOT  POOR  SUPPLY  AND 
MAINTENANCE  PROCEDURES 


Discussion  6-1 

Conclusions  6-2 

Recommendat ions  6-3 


CHAPTER  7.  LOCATION!  ! F >RI  STOCKAGE  IN  CONUS  AND 


OCONUS 

Discussion  7-1 

Conclusions  7-2 

Recommendations  7-3 

CHAPTER  8.  ADEQUACY  OF  I A ORF  GUIDANCE 

. iscussion  3-1 

Conclusions  P-2 

Recommendations  3-3 


Page 

i 

iii 


1-1 

1-1 

1-1 


2-1 

2-2 

2-2 


3-1 

3-1 

3-1 


4-1 

4-1 

4-1 


5-1 

5-4 


6- 


6-2 


7-1 

7-2 

7-2 


3-1 

8-1 

8-1 


i 


1 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (Cont) 


CHAPTER  9. 


APPENDIX  A. 
APPENDIX  B. 
APPENDIX  C. 


GLOSSARY 


Paragraph  Page 


CONSOLIDATED  CONCLUSIONS  AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

General  9-1  9-1 

ORF  Item  Selection  Criteria  (Chapter  2)  . 9-2  9-1 

ORF  for  General  Support  Forces  (Chapter  3)  9-3  9-1 

USAR  and  ARNG  ORF  Requirements  (Cnapter  4)  9-4  9-2 

Data  Needed  to  Update  ORF  Factors 

(Chapter  5)  9-5  9-2 

Adequacy  of  ORF  Requirement  in  Reflecting 
Real  Needs  and  Not  Poor  Maintenance  and 

Supply  Procedures  (Chapter  6)  9-6  9-3 

Locations  of  ORF  Stockage  in  CONUS  and 

OCONUS  (Chapter  7)  9-7  9-4 

Adequacy  of  DA  ORF  Guidance  (Chanter  8)  . 9-8  9-4 

TASKING  DIRECTIVES  A-l 

ORF  STATUS  AND  UTILISATION  REPORT  R-l 

REFERENCES  C- 1 


Glossary-1 


IV 


h 


CHAPTER  1 


INTRODUCTION 


1-1.  PROBLEM.  To  review  operational  readiness  float  (ORF)  policy  and  vali- 
date or  recommend  changes  to  improve  the  management  of  ORF  support. 

1-2.  ASSUMPTIONS. 

a.  Criteria  for  selection  of  items  to  be  provided  ORF  support  may  vary  by 
commodity  type. 

b.  Criteria  for  ORF  stockage  may  be  different  for  wartime  and  peacetime 
and  for  CONUS  and  OCONUS  commands. 

c.  Criteria  for  ORF  requirements  determination  will  be  based  on  wartime 

use . 

d.  Funding  constraints  and  difficulty  in  justifying  budqet  requirements 
will  continue  in  the  coming  years  and  perhaps  become  even  more  stringent. 

1-3.  FACTS  BEARING  ON  THE  PROBLEM. 

a.  AR  750-1,  dated  May  72,  prescribes  current  ORF  policies  and  proce- 

dures. A proposed  revision  is  being  staffed  by  letter,  DALO-SMM-F,  14  April 
1977,  subject:  AR  750-1,  Army  Materiel  Maintenance  Concepts  and  Policies. 

b.  Army  Audit  Agency  (AAA)  Report  NF,  76-214,  26  March  1976,  subject: 
Maintenance  Float  and  Direct  Exchange  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  AAA 
report)  contains  findings  and  recommendations  of  audits  performed  during  the 
period  July  1974  to  September  1975  at  UQ,  Department  of  the  Army,  USA  Materiel 
Development  and  Readiness  Command  (DARCOM) , USA  Communications  and  Electronic. 
Command  (CERCOM) , USA  Depot  System  Command  (DESCOM) , USA  Missile  Materiel 
Readiness  Command  (MIP.COM),  USA  Tank-Automotive  Materiel  Peadincss  Command 
(TARCOM) , and  at  units  under  tiie  control  of  USA  Forces  Command  (FORSCOM),  USA 
Training  anti  Doctrine  Command  (TRADOC)  , and  US  Army,  F.urope  (USARFUR)  . '.he 
overall  conclusions  of  the  AAA  pertaining  to  ORF  were  that: 

(1)  The  policy  concerning  the  criteria  for  selecting  equipment  and 
units  to  be  supported  by  ORF  needed  reevaluation. 

(2)  Quantities  of  equipment  established  as  required  for  ORF  were 
inaccurate.  Specific  AAA  recommendations  are  addressed  in  chapters  2 through  t . 

c.  General  Accounting  Office  (GAO)  Report,  LCD-76-442,  5 April  1977, 

subject:  Better  Management  of  Spare  Equipment  Will  Improve  Maintenance 

Productivity  and  Save  the  Army  Millions  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  GAO 
report)  questions  the  need  for  about  $62  million  of  equipment  for  noncombat 
units  and  about  $23  million  worth  of  tanks  and  automotive-type  equipment  for 
combat  units.  Specific  GAO  recommendations  are  addressed  in  chapters  2 
through  8. 

d.  The  Missile  and  Munitions  Evaluation  (MAME-74-75)  report,  April  1976, 
prepared  by  the  US  Army  Missile  and  Munitions  Center  and  School,  portrays  the 
worldwide  status  of  missile  and  munitions  logistical  support  in  the  areas  of 
doctrine,  organization,  personnel,  training  and  materiel,  including  position- 
ing of  ORF. 


1-1 


e.  A Study  to  Determine  the  Cost  Impact  of  Maintenance  Float,  April  1976, 
prepared  by  the  US  Army  Materiel  Maintenance  Center,  examines  the  role  of  ORF 
in  terms  of  its  contribution  to  materiel  readiness  of  the  Army-in-the-field. 

It  identifies  problem  areas  which  inhibit  float  operation,  determines  the  cost 
impact  of  the  maintenance  float  system,  and  provides  recommendations  for 
system  improvement  and  for  more  economical  alternative  procedures  or  systems. 

f.  An  Ordnance  Center  and  School,  Maintenance  Standards  Study,  December 
1975,  recommended  the  preparation  of  maintenance  and  repair  parts  consumption 
planning  guides  for  contingency  operations. 

£.  Draft  DARCOM  Regulation  702- ( ),  Product  Assurance,  Red  Team/System 
Assessment  Program,  1 June  1976,  requires  each  commodity  command  to  assess  and 
evaluate  the  total  performance  of  selected  fielded  systems. 

h.  Reserve  Component  units  are  required  by  the  provisions  of  AR  220-1  to 
report  their  unit  readiness  on  a semiannual  basis. 

i.  Only  the  Class  VII  items  listed  in  Appendix  C,  TM  38-750  for  materiel 
readiness  reporting  are  included  in  this  review,  excluding  aircraft,  medical 
materiel  and  fixed  communication-electronic  equipment  operated  and  maintained 
by  the  US  Army  Communications  Command  and  the  Army  Security  Agency. 

2-  AR  11-11,  2 February  1976,  subparagraph  2-lb(3),  specifies  that 
"Operational  readiness  float  is  authorized  for  procurement  and  distribution  to 
CONUS  installations  for  support  of  both  Active  and  Army  Reserve  units  sta- 
tioned on  or  supported  by  these  installations." 

k.  AR  71-3,  17  March  1975,  prescribes  the  responsibilities  and  procedures 
for  initiating,  planninq,  programinn,  conducting  and  reporting  user  testing. 

i.  AR  220-1,  17  March  L97o,  establishes  procedures  for  reporting  con, bat 
readiness  of  units  in  the  Army.  A change  is  being  implemented  which  will 
assign  a Readiness  Ident i f icat  ion  Code  to  each  line  item  number  in  each 
TOE/MTOE . 

m.  AR  700-120,  14  March  1974,  paragraph  2-5,  specifies  that  "The  Reserve 
Components  are  not  authorized  ORF  until  mobilized." 

n.  AR  710-2,  1 August  1971,  chapter  7,  proscribes  supply  performance 
objectives  to  bo  attained  at  unit,  direct  support  and  intermediate  levels  of 
supply. 

o.  AR  710-60,  1 March  1973,  clarifies  which  factors  should  be  used  to 
compute  ORF  requirements  when  more  than  one  commodity  command  uses  the  same 
equipment . 

£.  AR  750-37,  24  March  1971,  prescribes  the  Army  Sample  Data  Collection 
(SDC)  Program. 

o.  AR  750-52,  20  September  1973,  provides  equipment  operationally  ready 
standards  for  selected  Army  weapon  systems/equipments. 


CHAPTER  2 


ORF  ITEM  SELECTION  CRITERIA 


2-1.  DISCUSSION. 

a.  Selection  of  items  for  ORF  is  governed  by  criteria  which  assures 
optimization  of  materiel  readiness  within  practicable  cost  limitations.  AR 
750-1  prescribes  that  items  selected  for  ORF  must  be  (1)  mission  essential; 

(2)  maintenance  significant;  and,  (3)  authorized  maintenance  support  on  a 
repair  and  return  to  user  basis,  by  maintenance  activities  below  depot  level, 
and  above  the  organizational  maintenance  level.  (See  glossary.) 

b.  AR  220-1  prescribes  the  procedures  for  reporting  combat  readiness  of 
Army  units.  It  implements  JCS  Pub.  6,  Vol  II,  Part  2,  Chapter  1,  Joint 
Reporting  Structure,  Force  Status  and  Identity  Report  (FORSTAT) . A number  of 
subjective  and  statistical  factors  are  specified  to  evaluate  the  unit's 
overall  readiness.  Significant  among  the  factors  is  equipment  on  hand.  The 
quantity  indicated  in  the  "Required  Column"  of  a unit's  MTOE  is  measured 
against  the  on-hand  quantity,  regardless  of  the  authorized  level  of  personnel 
and  equipment.  This  influences  the  overall  readiness  of  the  unit.  Thus,  it 
is  possible  for  a unit  to  have  a low-  readiness  condition  (REDCON)  even  though 
the  unit  is  not  authorized  sufficient  equipment  to  attain  a higher  REDCON. 

Also,  all  reportable  items  carry  the  same  weight  for  all  reporting  units 
regardless  of  their  varying  operational  missions.  In  reality,  an  item  which 
may  be  mission  essential  to  one  type  of  unit  may  not  be  to  another. 

c.  A change  in  the  method  of  designating  equipment  to  be  reported  for 
readiness  status  has  been  initiated  by  DA.  A review  of  the  FORSTAT  require- 
ments revealed  that  the  current  method  of  designating  essential  equipment 
does  not  correlate  to  the  primary  operational  mission  of  the  unit,  and  that  i 
method  of  assigning  essentiality  of  an  item  in  relation  to  the  unit's  mission 
was  needed.  To  fulfill  this  need,  the  readiness  identification  code  concept 
was  developed.  Every  line  item  number  (LIN)  on  a TOF/MTOE  will  be  assignee-  a 
readiness  identification  code  as  follows: 

CODE  READINESS  IDENTIFICATION 

A Weapons  and  Equipment  (PWF) . A major  item  of  equipment 

essential  to  and  employed  directly  in  accomplishment  of  the 
unit's  primary  operational  mission. 

B Auxilary  Equipment  (AF.)  . Items  of  equipment  which  supplement 

PWE  or  take  the  place  of  PWE  if  it  becomes  inoperative.  This 
term  includes  equipment  other  than  PWE,  but  is  of  greater 
importance  for  the  performance  of  the-  unit's  primary  operational 
mission  than  administrative  suppiort  equipment. 

C Administrative  Support  Equipment  (ASE) . Items  of  equipment 

which  are  supportive  of  the  unit's  pjrimory  operational  mission. 

d.  TRADOC  tested  the  Readiness  Identif ication  Code  concept  at  Ft.  Carson, 
CO,  Tn  the  Spring  of  1976  by  coding  the  LINs  of  nine  different  TOEs  with  the 
appropriate  readiness  identification  codes.  The  results  of  using  these  codes 
as  a source  of  unit  readiness  determination  showed  an  improvement  and  meiited 


2-1 


adoption,  Army-wide.  Subsequently,  TRADOC  was  directed  to  annotate  all 
TOEs/MTOEs  with  the  new  codes.  The  target  date  for  completion  of  this  action 
is  January  1978. 

e.  The  AAA  report  states  that  the  Army  could  save  approximately  $161 
million  in  MIRCOM,  CERCOM,  and  TARCOM  by  eliminating  all  equipment  from  the 
ORE  other  than  RICC-1  items.  This  recommendation  should  be  deferred  pending 
implementation  of  the  new  readiness  identification  codes  stated  above.  Upon 
implementation  of  this  coding  structure,  ORE  requirements  should  be  computed 
and  authorized  only  for  those  items  of  equipment  with  a readiness  identifi- 
cation code  of  A in  the  unit's  MTOE . Excess  equipment  generated  by  this 
change  should  be  redistributed  within  each  .MACOM  to  fill  shortages,  or  if 
not  required  in  the  MACOM,  the  excesses  should  be  reported  to  the  commodity 
manager  for  disposition. 

2-2.  CONCLUSIONS. 

a.  Readiness  identification  codes  clarify  the  term  "mission-essential" 
and  subdivides  TOE/MTOE  lines  into  three  categories. 

b.  The  adoption  of  code  A as  the  mission-essential  criteria,  will  (1) 
limit  ORF  support  to  equipment  employed  directly  to  accomplish  a unit's 
primary  operational  mission  and  (2)  identify  excess  equipment  which  can  be 
redistributed . 

c.  The  limiting  of  ORF  support  *-o  RICC-1  items,  as  recommended  by  AAA.,  does 
not  consider  the  unit's  primary  ooerational  mission.  The  use  of  code  A 
overcomes  this  limitation. 

2-3.  RECOMMENDATIONS. 


a.  That  a comparative  analysis  be  made  of  the  current  mission-essential 
criteria  versus  RICC-1  and  code  A criteria  after  all  TOEs/MTOEs  have  been 
annotated  with  readiness  identification  codes.  The  analysis  should  consider 
the  effect  on  unit  readiness,  redistribution  of  excess  ORF  assets  and  procure- 
ment requirements. 

b.  That  the  implementation  of  the  A.AA  recommendation  be  deferrei  pending 
the  outcome  of  the  above  recommendation. 


CHAPTER  3 


ORE  FOR  GENERAL  SUPPORT  FORCES 


3-1.  DISCUSSION. 

a.  The  AAA  reports  that  savings  in  excess  of  $50  million  would  accrue  by 
eliminating  MIRCOM,  CERCOM  and  TARCOM-managed  ORF  support  to  General  Support 
Forces.  (See  glossary.)  The  AAA  and  GAO  reports  recommend  elimination  of 
ORF  support  to  General  Support  Forces. 

b.  Elimination  of  ORF  support  to  General  Support  Forces  would  reduce  ORF 
requirements  and  result  in  cost  savings  without  degrading  the  combat  effective- 
ness of  the  Army.  General  Support  Forces  can  often  adjust  their  work  programs 
and/or  coordinate  their  equipment  requirements  to  compensate  for  the  elimina- 
tion of  currently  authorized  ORF  support.  General  Support  Forces  units  are 
usually  collocated  with  other  support  and/or  combat  units.  Equipment  require- 
ments for  a deadlined  item  can  often  be  obtained  on  a loan  basis  without 
degrading  the  readiness  condition  of  the  loaning  unit.  Due  to  the  heavy 
training  load  at  service  schools,  they  may  be  unable  to  fulfill  their  ORF 
support  requirements  by  the  above  procedures.  In  this  event,  the  installation 
commander  should  have  the  option  of  providing  ORF  support  if  the  item(s)  are 
authorized  to  support  a TOE  STRAF  unit.  If  a General  Support  Forces  unit  has 

a valid  justif ication  for  ORF  support  that  can  not  be  met  by  the  above  proce- 
dures, the  requirement  should  be  forwarded  to  HQDA  (DALO-SMD)  for  approval. 

3-2.  CONCLUSIONS. 

a.  The  deletion  of  General  Support  Force  units  from  Army  ORF  requirements 
would  net  degrade  Army  combat  readiness,  but  could  degrade  training  conducted 
in  service  schools. 

b.  Cost  savings  would  be  realized  by  deleting  General  Support  Forces 
from  the  Army  ORF  requirements. 

c.  HQDA  (DALO-SMD)  may  authorize  ORF  support  on  an  exception  basis  fc r 
General  Support  Force  units  that  submit  adequate  justi f ication . 

3-3.  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

a.  That  General  Support  Forces  be  excluded  from  the  computation  of  ORF 
requirements . 

b.  That  General  Support  Forces  not  be  authorized  an  ORF  without  HQDA 
(DALO-SMD)  approval,  except  that  an  installation  commander  may  authorize  C RF 
for  a service  school  if  an  ORF  is  authorized  to  support  TOE  STRAF  units  at 
the  installation. 

c.  That  equipment  generated  as  a result  of  the  implementation  of  the 
above  recommendations  be  redistributed  to  fill  shortages. 

d.  That  AR  750-1  be  changed  to  incorporate  these  recommendations. 


3-1  (3-2  Blank) 


CHAPTER  4 


USAR  AND  ARNO  ORF  REQUIREMENTS 


4-1.  DISCUSSION. 

a.  AR  11-11  currently  authorizes  the  procurement  of  ORF  requirements  for 
the  Reserve  Components,  while  AR  700-120  does  not  authorize  its  distribution 
until  the  Reserve  Components  are  mobilized.  If  a Reserve  Component  unit  has  a 
valid  peacetime  justification  for  ORF  support,  HQDA  (DALO-SMD)  may  authorize 
it  on  an  exception  basis. 

b.  The  ORF  project  team  prepared  ORF  questionnaires  and  participated  in  a 
joint  data  collection  effort  wi^h  the  Improved  Maintenance  Support  Among  Army, 
ARNO,  and  USAR  (Project  760116)  Team..  From  5 May  through  1R  June  1976,  1 41 
Active  and  Reserve  Component  activities  were  visited.  The  observations  and 
findings  of  these  visits  and  questionnai res  are  as  follows: 

(1)  Reserve  Components  have  a limited  need  for  all  of  their  authorized 
equipment,  and  hence,  no  real  requirements  for  ORF.  Their  annual  training 
requirement  consists  of  49  unit  drills  and  16  days  of  active  duty  training. 

With  this  limited  usage  and  with  other  units  collocated  in  the  same  geograph- 
ical area,  equipment  is  generally  available  for  loan  to  units  when  their 
equipment  is  unserviceable. 

(2)  Many  Reserve  Component  units  store  their  equipment  in  equipment 
pools  when  they  cannot  store  or  utilize  them  a*-  their  hone  stations  because  of 
limited  storage  space,  shortage  of  organizational  mechanics  and/or  lack  of 
training  requirements . These  equipment  pools  are  located  at  unit  training 
equipment  sites  (UTES) , mobilization  and  training  equipment  sites  (MATES),  and 
equipment  concentration  sites  (FCS). 

(3)  The  distribution  of  ORF  assets  to  the  Reserve  Components  during 
peacetime  would  result  in  definite  under-utilization  of  equipment.  It  would 
also  require  units  to  divert  maintenance  personnel  to  maintain  the  ORF. 

4-2.  CONCLUSIONS. 

a.  The  procurement  of  CRT  requirements  is  necessary  in  peacetime  to 
provide  the  ORF  support  that  will  be  needed  in  the  event  of  mobilization. 

b.  An  ORF  for  the  Reserve  Components  is  generally  not  warranted  in  peace- 
time, considering  the  limited  usage  of  on-hand  equipment  and  equipment  storeo 
in  equipment  pools. 

c.  HQDA  (DALO-SMD)  should  authorize  ORF  support  on  an  exception  basis  to 
Reserve  Component  units  that  submit  adequate  j us t i f icat ion . 

4-7.  RFCOMMENDATIONS. 

a.  ORF  requirements  continue  to  be  procured  for  Reserve  Component  units. 

b.  ORF  assets  be  issued  to  Reserve  Component  units  normally  only  when 
mobi 1 i zed . 

c.  The  use  of  ORF  by  Reserve  Component  units  durinq  peacetime  be  approved 
by  HQDA  (DALO-SMD)  on  an  exception  basis  when  adequate  justification  is 
submitted.  ORF  requests  for  ARNC,  units  should  also  be  approved  by  the  National 
Guard  Bureau  (NGB) . 

d.  That  AR  750-1  be  changed  to  incorporate  these  recommendations. 


4-1  (4-2  Blank) 


CHAPTER  5 


DATA  NEEDED  TO  UPDATE  ORF  FACTORS 


5-1.  DISCUSSION. 

a.  The  Army's  stated  requirement  for  about  $553  million  of  ORF  is  the 
ORF  needed  to  meet  mobilization  requirements.  It  is  computed  as  prescribed 
in  DCSRDA  Procurement,  Planning  and  Policy  Guidance  (PPPG) , dated  1 December 
1975.  The  US  Army  Research  Development  and  Acquisition  Information  Systems 
Agency  (RDAISA)  computes  these  requirements  by  multiplying  the  ORF  factors 
in  SB  710-1-1  (which  are  wartime  factors  developed  by  the  various  commodity 
commands)  by  the  initial  issue  quantity  (IIQ)  of  the  equipment  in  the  total 
Army  Force.  These  wartime  factors  should  not  be  changed  solely  on  the  basis 
of  peacetime  ORF  usage  experience,  since  both  the  operational  and  maintenance 
environments  in  peacetime  differ  from  those  encountered  in  time  of  war  in  the 
following  areas: 

Intensity  of  use  of  equipment. 

Attitudes  toward  use  of  ORF. 

Availability  of  resources. 

Priorities  for  the  use  o€  resources. 

b.  The  principle  behind  utilizing  a wartime  factor  is  based  on  the 
requXrement  that  the  Army  must  be  ready  to  mobilize  on  short  notice.  For  this 
reason,  the  Army  does  not  compute  and  utilize  both  wartime  and  peacetime  ORF 
factors.  If  ORF  requirements  were  based  on  peacetime  factors,  the  Army  would 
not  have  sufficient  ORF  available  to  meet  mobilization  requirements. 

c.  The  Army  has  not  updated  its  wartime  ORF  factors  since  1971,  as  stated 
in  tKe  GAO  report  primarily  because  there  is  little  need  to  do  so  every  2 
years  if  the  following  procedure  for  determining  wartime  ORF  factors  for  new 
items  in  paragraph  7-2  of  AR  750-1  is  followed: 

"Selection  of  items  to  be  supported  by  maintenance  float.  a.  The 
number  of  line  items  to  be  autTTor  i zed  maintenance*  float  support  and  the 
quantities  of  materiel  used  to  provide  such  support,  to  include  TMDE,  will 
be  held  to  a minimum. 

b.  The  maintenance  support,  concept  included  in  materiel  need  or 
other  qualitative  requirements  documents  for  new  materiel  and  the  maintenance 
support  plan  for  such  materiel  will  indicate  whether  or  not  maintenance  float 
support  is  proposed  for  the  item. 

c.  In  making  this  determination,  appropriate  consideration  will  be 
given  to  such  alternatives  to  maintenance  float  support  as — 

(1)  The  designation  of  modules  subject  to  frequent  failure  as  repair 
parts  or  items  to  be  supported  by  the  direct  exchange  program. 

(2)  The  use  of  standby  equipment  authorizations  to  support  critical 
systems  with  high  availability  requirements. 

(3)  The  use  of  a maintenance  support  structure  that  provides  for  an 
organizational  maintenance  capability  in  selected  using  units/organizations 
to  perform  maintenance  operations  normally  allotted  to  direct  support  mainte- 
nance activities. 


d.  Appropriate  analytical  techniques  and  simulations  will  be  used  in 
making  the  initial  determination  to  provide  maintenance  float  support  and 
repeated  thereafter  during  the  materiel  acquisition  process  to  assure  that 
this  determination  represents  the  most  cost  effective  means  of  providing  the 
requisite  degree  of  materiel  readiness  of  the  system  equipment. 

e.  The  determination  to  provide  maintenance  float  support  for  a 
system  or  equipment  will  be  evaluated  during  the  Expanded  Service  Test  and 
subsequent  operational  tests  and  evaluations  (AR  71-3)  and  will  be  documented, 
to  include  initial  float  factor  and/or  quantitative  requirements  computations, 
for  approval  as  part  of  the  type  classification  action  required  for  the 
quantity  procurement  of  the  item  for  deployment." 

d.  All  wartime  ORF  factors  should  be  reviewed  and  updated  when: 

(1)  A new  item  has  been  in  the  operational  inventory  for  2 years. 

(2)  The  availability  rates  for  the  equipment,  worldwide  or  specific 
ma}or  command,  as  reflected  in  DA  level  readiness  reports  for  three  reporting 
periods,  show  a deviation  from  the  DA  standard  of  5 percent  or  more  (see 
paragraph  l-3q,  AR  750-52). 

(3)  A Maintenance  and  Repair  Parts  Consumption  Planning  Guide  for  Con- 
tingency Operations  is  prepared  (see  paragraph  l-3f,  Maintenance  Standards 
Study) . 

e.  Data  to  review  wartime  ORF  factors  can  be  obtained  from: 

(1)  Controlled  Sample  Data  Collection  (SDC)  Programs  as  prescribed  in 
AR  750-37  (paragraph  l-3p)  which  are  generally  initiated  for  new  items  of 
equipment. 

(2)  Red  Team/Syster  Assessment  Programs  tha“~  the  DARCOM  commodity 
commands  conduct  to  assess  and  evaluate  total  performance  of  selected  fielded 
systems . 

£.  ORF  is  identified  as  a separate  item  only  in  the  Army  Acquisition 
Objective  (AAO)  of  the  Army  Materiel  Plan  (AMF)  used  to  compute  Army  initial 
, wartime  requirements.  The  AAO  consists  of: 

Initial  Issue  Quantity  (IIQ) 

Operational  Readiness  Float  (ORF) 

Repair  Cycle  Float  (RCF) 

Operational  Projects 
Special  Contingency 
Post  D-Day  Consumption 

Budgetary  limitations  generally  prevent  the  Army  from  procuring  sufficient 
equipment  to  meet  its  authorized  acquisition  objectives  (AAOs)  in  most  items 
of  equipment.  DAI.O-LEP's  investigation  revealed  that  the  Army  has  an  OFF  of 
about  $200  million  on  hand,  which  is  approximately  36  percent  of  its  initial 
wartime  requirement. 

g.  There  is  no  audit  trail  for  ORF  items  by  which  they  can  be  traced  from 
the  initial  wartime  requirements  in  the  AMF  to  the  Major  Item  Distribution 
Plan  (MIDP) . Since  the  Army  Supply  System  is  a "pull"  system,  ORF  is  not 
issued  unless  requisitioned.  When  ORF  requisiticns  are  filled,  theater 
commanders  distribute  assets  as  they  see  fit.  Therefore,  there  is  no  way  of 


5-2 


knowing  the  quantity  of  ORF  assets  unless  the  MACOMs  are  required  to  report 
this  information.  The  MIDP  makes  bulk  allocations  of  available  assets  to  each 
MACOM.  Each  MACOM  determines  the  exact  number  of  these  limited  assets  that 
will  be  used  as  ORF,  using  the  following  procedure  prescribed  in  paragraph 
7-17  of  AR  750-1: 

"Review  and  adjustment  of  levels.  a.  Operational  readiness  float 
assets  will  be  reviewed  annually  at  all  levels  of  command  to  insure  that 
assets  are  effectively  used. 

b.  Major  Amy  commands  will  make  necessary  internal  adjustments  to 
allocated  operational  readiness  float  assets  by  redistribution  of  float  assets, 
taking  into  consideration  demand  and  usage  experience  and  changes  in  densities 
of  equipment  supported  by  maintenance  units/activities  assigned  a direct 
support  mission. 

c.  Major  Army  commands  will  submit  recommendations  to  responsible 
national  level  materiel  managers  to  adjust  size  of  operational  readiness  float 
inventories  when  reviews  indicate  that  such  action  is  required  to  satisfy  the 
80  percent  ORF  availability  standard." 

h.  Maintenance  Management  Center  (MMC)  Study,  April  1976,  "A  Study  to 
Determine  the  Cost  Impact  of  Maintenance  Floats,"  (paragraph  l-3e)  recommended 
improving  methods  for  assignment  and  management  of  float  assets. 

i^.  On  9 June  1976,  DALO-LEP,  DARCOM,  and  MMC  representatives  met  and 
agreed  that  DARCOM  would  task  MMC  to  initiate  follow-on  activities  to  their 
study  with  the  following  objectives: 

(1)  Identify  major  user  command  ORF  usage  reports  and  management  method:-. 

(2)  Recommend  improvements,  or  standardization,  of  reports  and  manage- 
ment methods. 

(3)  Determine  if  standardized  major  command  reports  can  be  used  by  DA 
and  DARCOM  Commodity  Commands  for  adjustment  of  peacetime  and  wartime  ORf 
factors,  and  Army-wide  control  of  float  assets. 

2_.  Appendix  B contains  the  MMC  report  recommendation  regarding  the  format 
for  an  "Operational  Readiness  Float  (ORF)  Status  and  Utilization  Report"  to 
be  prepared  annually  by  all  MACOMs.  It  is  similar  to  the  current  FORSCOM 
report. 

k.  On  7 September  1976,  HQPA  (DALO-SML)  tasked  DARCOM  to  complete  a Repa i • 
Cycle  Float  (PCF)  study  by  June  1977.  The  study  includes  evaluation  of 
mathematical  methods  for  the  establishment  of  RCF  and  ORF  factors,  and  a survey 
of  user  management  of  ORF;  it  may  determine  that  changes  should  be  made  to  the 
proposed  "Operational  Readiness  Float  Status  and  Utilization  Report"  contained 
in  appendix  B. 

5-2.  CONCLUSIONS. 

a.  The  ORF  factors  in  SB  710-1-1  (wartime  factors  developed  by  the 
respective  commodity  commands)  and  the  methodology  used  to  compute  ORF 
mobilization  requirements  appear  to  be  valid. 

b.  Compliance  with  regulatory  guidelines  for  selecting  items  to  be 
supported  by  ORF  and  the  updating  of  ORF  factors  provide  the  primary  means 


5-3 


to  determine  accurate  and  current  ORF  factors.  Regulatory  provisions  are 
augmented  by  actions  taken  by  some  MACOMs  to  assist  and  influence  the 
methodology  for  computing  and  refining  ORF  factors.  However,  updating  ORF 
factors  for  items  in  the  operational  inventory  every  2 years  appears  to  be 
excessive  for  most  items. 

c.  A standardized  annual  MACOM  ORF  Status  and  Utilization  Report  is 
needed  to  improve  the  management  of  ORF  assets. 

5-3.  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

a.  Continue  the  current  methodology  for  computing  ORF  factors  for  new 
items  and  reviewing  the  factors  at  the  end  of  2 years. 

b.  Continue  to  publish  ORF  factors  in  SB  710-1-1. 

c.  Delete  the  requirement  to  review  ORF  factors  every  2 years  from  AR 
750-T  and  substitute  the  following  therefor: 

"(1)  Maintenance  float  factors  initially  established  for  new  items  or 
items  that  have  been  in  the  operational  inventory  for  less  than  2 years  will 
be  reviewed  after  the  items  have  been  deployed  for  a period  of  2 years. 
Thereafter,  these  factors  will  be  reviewed  when: 

(a)  The  availability  rates  for  the  equipment,  worldwide  or  specific 
major  command,  as  reflected  in  DA  level  materiel  readiness  reports  for  three 
reporting  periods,  show  a deviation  from  the  DA  standard  of  5 percent  or  more. 

(b)  A Maintenance  and  Repair  Farts  Consumption  Planning  Guide  for 
Contingency  Operations  is  prepared. 

(2)  Data  to  review  ORF  factors  will  be  obtained  from: 

(a)  Controlled  Sample  Data  Collection  (SDC)  Programs  as  prescribed 
in  AR  750-37  (paragraph  C-2e)  which  are  generally  initiated  for  new  items  of 
equipment . 

(b)  Red  Team/System  Assessment  Programs  that  DARCOM  commodity  commands 
conduct  to  assess  and  evaluate  total  performance  of  selected  fielded  systems." 

d.  If  the  RCF  study,  scheduled  for  completion  in  June  1977,  interposes 
no  objections,  AR  750-1  be  changed  to  require  that  the  "ORF  Status  and 
Utilization  Report"  in  appendix  B be  prepared  annually  for  use  by: 

(1)  MACOMs  to  manage  their  peacetime  ORF  assets. 

(2)  The  respective  commodity  commands  for  use  in  editing  ORF  requisitions. 

(3)  HQDA  (DAI.O-SMD)  as  a management  tool  in  distributing  assets. 


CHAPTER  6 


ADEQUACY  OF  ORE  REQUIREMENTS  IN  REFLECTING  REAL  NEEDS 
AND  NOT  POOR  SUPPLY  AND  MAINTENANCE  PROCEDURES 


6-1.  DISCUSSION. 

a.  A GAO  report  conclusion  states:  "The  system  operates  to  use  float 

equipment  as  a substitute  for,  rather  than  a supplement  to,  a reasonable 
level  of  performance  by  the  field  maintenance  units.  As  a result,  inefficient 
maintenance  and  supply  support  are  rewarded  by  extra  float  equipment." 

b.  If  this  is  a valid  conclusion,  the  practice  is  in  violation  of  AR 

750-1  which  states:  "ORE  items  will  be  issued  to  supported  units  to  replace 

unserviceable  economically  repairable  items  which  have  a replacement  issue 
priority  of  IPD  (Issue  Priority  Designator)  1 through  8 and  which  cannot  be 
repaired  by  support  maintenance  units/activities  within  the  maximum  repair 
time  limits  prescribed."  The  Army  cannot  afford  extravagant  stockage  of  ORF , 
but  must  exercise  prudent  management  in  its  use  at  all  times.  It  is  also 
recognized  that  the  Army  cannot  invest  in  large  quantities  of  ORF  equipment 

as  a contingency  against  all  supply  and  maintenance  problems.  The  performance 
measures  and  objectives  listed  in  the  following  paragraphs  have  been  estab- 
lished to  preclude  this. 

c.  AR  710-2  prescribes  supply  performance  measures  and  objectives  to  be 
attained  at  unit,  direct  support,  and  intermediate  levels  of  supply  for: 

Customer  support  (demand  accommodations,  demand  satisfactions,  and  fill 
rates);  processing  time  (request/receipt);  stockage  list  responsiveness  (PLL 
size  and  ASL  activity);  assets  (stock  on  hand,  quick  supply  store  zero  balance, 
inventory  accuracy,  and  inventory  management  measures);  dues-in,  dues-out 
(zero  balance  with  dues-out,  ASL  dues-in  over  180  days,  non-ASL  dues-in  over 
180  days,  average  shortage  duration,  average  wait  for  fill,  and  high  priority 
rate)  . 

d.  DA  message,  301500Z  Jul  76,  Materiel  Maintenance  Performance  Measures: 

(1)  Prescribes  materiel  maintenance  performance  measures  and  objectives 
for  DSU/GSU  (TOE  & TDA)  units  and  CONUS  installations  for  materiel  turnaround 
time  (TAT) , and  staff-hour  utilization  index  (SUI). 

(2)  States  that  action  is  being  taken  to  define  additional  maintenance 
performance  measures  and  related  DA  objectives  where  appropir iate . 

e.  When  maintenance  and  supply  activities  meet  these  above  objectives, 
peacetime  ORF  stockage  based  on  demands  will  more  accurately  reflect  real 
needs . 

f.  On  1 September  1971,  the  Army  amended  MIL-M-63000C (TM)  for  Technical 

Manuals:  General  Requirements  for  Manuscripts.  It  requires  that  all  new  TMs 

published  after  that  date  incorporate  work  measurement  time  data  for  each 
maintenance  task  listed  in  the  Maintenance  Allocation  Chart  (MAC)  for  each 
level  of  maintenance.  All  nev'  maintenance  TMs,  as  well  as  revisions  to 
existing  manuals  initiated  for  other  reasons,  will  include  work  measurement 
time  data  in  the  MACs.  Numerous  TMs  containing  this  information  are  in  the 
field.  Due  to  the  magnitude  of  such  a program,  the  Army  does  not  have  a 


6-1 


wholesale  conversion  program  under  way  to  provide  for  inclusion  of  this  time 
data  in  the  MAC  in  all  existing  TMs.  However,  the  Army  has  established  an 
accelerated  program  to  provide  for  the  development  of  time  data  on  a group  cf 
selected  items  of  equipment,  such  as  the  M109  Howitzer,  M60A1  Tank,  and  other 
essential  items.  This  work  measurement  time  data  will  provide  the  maintenance 
managers  with  "standard  staff-hours"  to  compute  the  efficiency  rate. 

g_.  As  a precedent  and  indication  of  what  can  be  done,  the  Aviation 
Systems  Command  (AVSCOM)  has  developed  flat  rate  manuals  for  the  following 
helicopters:  AH-1G,  OH-58A,  CH-47A,  and  UH-1H.  These  manuals  can  be  used  to 

compute  "standard  staff-hours." 

6-2.  CONCLUSIONS. 

a.  AR  750-1  should  be  revised  to  require  that  MACOMs  insure  that  mainte- 
nance and  supply  activities  meet  the  logistic  objectives  stated  in  the  per- 
formance measures  prescribed  in  chapter  7,  AR  710-2,  and  the  DA  message  cited 
in  paragraph  6-ld,  prior  to  requesting  increased  ORF  authorizations. 

b.  Development  of  additional  maintenance  performance  measures  as  indi- 
cated in  cited  DA  message  will  contribute  valuable  data  to  bring  management 
of  ORF  under  control. 

c.  All  TMs  should  include  "standard  staff-hours"  for  use  in  computing 
the  efficiency  rates  (ERs)  performance  measurement.  AVSCOM’ s flat-rate 
manuals  for  the  AH-1G,  OH-58A,  CH-47A  and  UH-1H  can  be  used  as  models  for 
this  purpose. 

6-3.  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

a.  That  AR  750-1  be  revised  to  require  that  MACOMs  insure  that  their 
maintenance  and  supply  activities  meet  the  logistic  objectives  stated  in  the 
performance  measures  prescribed  in  chapter  7,  AR  710-2,  and  DA  message  301500Z 
Jul  76,  prior  to  approving  increased  ORF  authorizations. 

b.  That  action  to  develop  the  additional  performance  measures  as  indi- 
cated in  paragraph  6-ld(2)  be  initiated. 

c.  That  all  TMs  not  containing  "standard  staff-hours”  be  rewritten  ex- 
peditiously to  include  them  for  use  in  computing  efficiency  rates  (ERs). 


6-2 


CHAPTER  7 


LOCATION (S)  OE  ORF  STOCKAGE  IN  CONUS  AND  OCONUS 


7-1.  DISCUSSION. 

a.  Although  location  (s)  of  ORF  stocks  is  stated  as  policy  in  AR  750-1 
(para  7-6c),  there  is  allowance  for  flexibility  under  varying  circumstances. 
Even  so,  the  policy  is  subject  to  reexamination.  This  discussion  will  develop 
logic  to  seek  the  optimal  location  (s)  for  ORF  stocks. 

b.  The  Missile  and  Munitions  Evaluation  Study,  conducted  by  the  US  Army 
Missile  t*  Munitions  Center  & School  in  April  1976,  indicated  there  was  wide 
variation  in  the  location  of  missile  ORF.  In  CONUS,  the  HAWK  and  NIKE  HERCULES 
units  had  no  appreciable  ORF  assets.  The  CHAPARRAL/VULCAN  units  were  variable 
in  the  number  of  systems  on  hand  at  the  DS  level;  and  at  some  installations 
the  float  was  located  and  maintained  by  the  installation's  post  maintenance 
function.  In  Alaska,  the  NIKE  HERCULES  ORF  was  located  at  the  DS/GS  company. 

DS  units  frequently  experience  problems  in  obtaining  supply  and  maintenance 
support  of  the  nonmissile  components  of  the  ORF.  An  example  of  this  is 
related  to  the  automotive  portions;  i.e.,  tracks,  drive  trains  and  engines 

for  the  CHAPARRAL  and  VULCAN  self-propelled  vehicles.  In  OCONUS  areas,  the 
location  of  the  missile  ORF  varied.  In  Korea,  all  ORF  was  located  at  the  DS 
unit  levels  for  all  systems.  In  Europe,  the  HAWK  ORF  was  located  entirely  at 
the  DS  le''el;  the  NIKE  HERCULES  ORF  was  sp>lit,  with  system  major  items  as  CS 
and  smaller  items  at  DS;  the  CHAPARRAL/VULCAN  ORF  was  exclusively  at  the  DC 
level . 

c.  The  following  observations  were  obtained  from  the  ORF  questionnaires 
and  discussions  with  representatives  of  DA  and  USAREUR  staffs: 

(1)  When  the  ORF  is  located  at  DS  level,  some  organizations  experience 
the  following  problems: 

(a)  There  is  a tendency  not  to  issue  ORF  as  property  bock  transact;  r. , 
because  the  outstanding  job  orders  and  parts  requisitions  fer  tactical  item 
being  exchanged  must  be  canceled  and  resubmitted,  often  with  a lower  priority. 

(b)  The  additional  ORF  maintenance  workload  must  be  performed  without 
commensurate  resources,  chiefly  manpower. 

(c)  Possession  of  the  ORF  inhibits  mobility  due  to  lack  of  prime 
movers.  This  problem  particularly  affects  DS  units  which  are  required  to  bo 
100  percent  mobile. 

( cl ) When  ORFs  are  located  in  forward  support  units,  there  is  a 
tendency  for  then'  to  be  abused  and  misutilizod  (e.g.,  subassemblies  removed, 
parts  cannibalized). 

(e)  Because  of  the  above  cited  problems,  the  ORF  is  not  always 
maintained  at  the  level  that  is  necessary  to  keep  it  operational. 

(2)  In  contrast  to  the  problems  at  the  DS  level,  there  do  not  appear  to 
be  as  many  problems  when  the  ORF  is  positioned  at  the  GS  level.  Some  of  the 
advantages  cited  were  as  follows: 


7-1 


(a)  Manpower  for  maintenance  support  of  the  ORF  is  generally 
available. 

(b)  Quality  assurance/quality  control  is  more  intensively  managed. 

(c)  Mobility  considerations  are  not  a major  problem. 

(d)  The  potential  for  misutili zation  is  low. 

(e)  A centralized  point  is  established  for  the  control,  issue  and 
support  of  a large  portion  of  the  theater  ORF. 

(3)  The  positioning  of  the  ORF  at  installation  level  appears  to  be  the 
most  satisfactory  location  in  CONUS.  However,  at  installations  which  support 
a division (s),  there  are  advantages  in  positioning  the  ORF  at  the  division 
DSU.  In  cases  where  requests  can  be  justified  on  an  exception  basis,  AR 
750-1  should  be  changed  to  allow  the  MACOM  commander  to  authorize  positioning 
the  ORF  at  the  division  DSU. 

(4)  AR  700-120  authorizes  ORF  for  overseas  units  to  be  computed  against 
the  required  columns  of  the  MTOE/TDA  of  supported  units.  If  the  theater 
commander  requisitions  and  receives  this  ORF,  he  should  be  authorized  to 

place  the  ORF  that  is  not  demand  supported  in  peacetime  at  CSU  or  war  reserve  sites. 

7-2.  CONCLUSIONS. 

a.  In  CONUS,  the  ORF  should  be  located  at  the  installation  level,  except 
in  those  cases  which  can  be  justified  to  the  MACOM  commander  to  position  it  at 
the  division  DSU  level. 

b.  In  OCONUS,  the  demand  supported  ORF  should  normally  be  positioned  at 
the  GS  level  for  enhanced  control  and  improved  support.  Selected  items  should 
be  justified,  on  an  exception  basis,  to  the  theater  commander  to  be  positioned 
at  the  DSU  level. 

c.  The  theater  commander  should  also  be  authorized  to  position  nondem.and 
supported  ORF  at  either  GSU  or  war  reserve  sites. 

7-3.  RECOMMENDATIONS.  AR  750-1  be  changed  to  permit: 

a.  ORF  to  be  positioned  at  CONUS  division  DSU  sites  in  those  cases  where 
the  action  can  be  justified  to,  and  approved  by  the  MACOM  commander. 


b.  OCONUS  ORF  be  positioned  at  DSU,  GSU  or  war  reserve  sites  at  the 
discretion  of  the  theater  commander. 


CHAPTER  8 


ADEQUACY  OF  DA  ORE'  GUIDANCE 


8-1.  DISCUSSION. 

a.  ARs  11-11  and  700-120  contain  conflicting  and  incomplete  statements 
regarding  the  authorization  of  ORF  support  for  Reserve  Component  units. 

b.  Paragraph  2-lb(3),  AR  11-11,  states: 

"Operational  readiness  float  is  authorized  for  procurement  and  distribution 

to — 


(a)  CONUS  installations  for  the  support  of  both  Active  Army  and  Army 
Reserve  units  stationed  on  or  supported  by  these  installations. 

(b)  US  property  and  fiscal  officers  of  the  several  State  entities 
for  support  of  the  Army  National  Guard  while  in  an  inactive  (nonmobilized) 
status. " 

c.  Paragraph  2-5,  AR  700-120,  states  in  part: 

"The  Reserve  components  are  not  authorized  ORF  until  mobilized.  ORF  for 
aircraft  and  aircraft  related  items  will  be  computed  against  the  Required 
column  of  MOTE  for  all  commands,  Active  and  Reserve." 

d.  Message,  DAMO-RQD,  231845Z  Apr  76,  subject:  FY  78  POM  Aircraft  IIQ £/ 

AAOs  and  ORF,  RCF,  PTRF  Rates,  states  in  part: 

"ORF  and  RCF  will  be  applied  to  all  active  and  reserve  component  TOE 
units. " 

e.  The  above  statement  (para  8-ld)  is  not  reflected  in  ARs  11-11  and 
700-120. 

f.  The  proposed  revision  of  AR  750-1  (para  l-3a)  would  be  improved  by 
the  Inclusion  of  the  changes  recommended  in  chapters  3,  4,  5,  6,  and  7 of 
this  review. 

8-2.  CONCLUSIONS. 

a.  Conflicting  and  incomplete  statements  in  ARs  11-11  and  700-120, 
regarding  the  authorization  of  ORF  support  for  Reserve  Component  units, 
should  be  corrected. 

b.  The  proposed  revision  of  AR  750-1  should  include  the  changes  recom- 
mended in  chapters  3,  4,  5,  6,  and  7 of  this  review. 

8- 3 . RECOMMENDATIONS . 

a.  Revise  AR  11-11,  paragraph  2-lb(3),  to  read: 

"Operational  readiness  float  is  authorized  for  procurement  and  distribution 

to — 

(a)  CONUS  installations  for  the  support  of  both  Active  Army  and  Army 
Reserve  units  (aircraft  and  aircraft  related  items  only)  stationed  on  or  sup- 
ported by  these  installations. 


8-1 


I 

(b)  US  property  and  fiscal  officers  of  the  several  State  entities 
for  support  of  the  Army  National  Guard  while  in  an  inactive  (nonmobilized) 
status  (aircraft  and  aircraft  related  items  only)." 

b.  Revise  AR  700-120,  paragraph  2-5,  to  read: 

"The  Reserve  Components  are  not  authorized  ORF  support  until  mobilized 
(except  for  aircraft  and  aircraft  related  items).  ORF  for  aircraft  and 
aircraft  related  items  will  be  computed  against  the  Required  column  of  MTOE 
for  all  commands,  Active  and  Reserve." 

c.  The  proposed  revision  of  AR  750-1  includes  the  changes  recommended  in 
chapters  3,  4,  5,  6,  and  7 of  this  review. 


CHAPTER  9 


CONSOLIDATED  CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 

9-1.  GENERAL.  This  chapter  contains  a consolidation  of  the  conclusions  and 
recommendations  reached  in  chapters  2 through  8. 

9-2.  ORF  ITEM  SELECTION  CRITERIA  (CHAPTER  2). 

a.  Conclusions. 


(1)  Readiness  identification  codes  clarify  the  term  "mission-essential" 
and  subdivides  TOE/MTOE  lines  into  three  categories. 

(2)  The  adoption  of  code  A as  the  mission-essential  criteria,  will  (a) 
limit  OR!'  support  to  equipment  employed  directly  to  accomplish  a unit's  primary 
operational  mission  and  (b)  identify  excess  equipment  which  can  be  redistributed. 

(3)  The  limiting  of  ORE  support  to  RICC-1  items,  as  recommended  by  AAA, 
does  not  consider  the  unit's  primary  operational  mission.  The  use  of  code  A 
overcomes  this  limitation. 

b . Recommendat ions . 

(1)  That  a comparative  analysis  be  made  of  the  current  mission-essential 
criteria  versus  RICC-1  and  code  A criteria  after  all  TOEs/MTOEs  have  been 
annotated  with  readiness  identification  codes.  The  analysis  should  consider 
the  effect  on  unit  readiness,  redistribution  of  excess  ORF  assets  and  procure- 
ment requirements. 

(2)  That  the  implementation  of  the  AAA  recommendation  be  deferred 
pending  the  outcome  of  the  above  recommendation. 

9-3.  ORF  FOR  GENERAL  SUPPORT  FORCES  (CHAPTER  3) . 

a . Conclusions . 

(1)  The  deletion  of  General  Support  Force  units  from  Army  ORF  require- 
ments would  not  degrade  Army  combat  readiness,  but  could  degrade  training 
conducted  in  service  schools. 

(2)  Cost  savings  would  be  realized  by  deleting  General  Support  rorces 
from  the  Army  ORF  requirements. 

(3)  UODA  (DALO-SMD)  may  authorize  > >rf  support  on  an  exception  basis  for 
General  Support  Force  units  that  submit  adequate  justification. 

r . Recommenda  t ions . 

(1)  That  General  Support  Forces  be  excluded  from  the  computation  of  ORF 
requirements . 

t2)  That  General  Support  Forces  not  be  authorized  an  ORF  without  HQDA 
(DALO-SMD)  approval,  except  that  an  installation  commander  may  authorize  ORF 
for  a service  school  if  an  ORF  is  authorized  to  support  TOE  STRAF  units  at  the 
installation. 


9-1 


(3)  That  equipment  generated  as  a result  of  the  implementation  of  the 
above  recommendations  be  redistributed  to  fill  shortages. 

(4)  That  AR  750-1  be  changed  to  incorporate  these  recommendations. 

9-4.  USAR  AND  ARNG  ORF  REQUIREMENTS  (CHAPTER  4). 

a . Conclusions . 

(1)  The  procurement  of  ORF  requirements  is  necessary  in  peacetime  to 
provide  the  ORF  support  that  will  be  needed  in  the  event  of  mobilization. 

(2)  An  ORF  for  the  Reserve  Components  is  generally  not  warranted  in 
peacetime,  considering  the  limited  usage  of  on-hand  equipment  and  equipment 
stored  in  equipment  pools. 

(3)  UQDA  (DALO-SMD)  should  authorize  ORF  support  on  an  exception  basis 
to  Reserve  Component  units  that  submit  adequate  justification. 

b . Recommendations ■ 

(1)  ORF  requirements  continue  to  be  procured  for  P.eserve  Component 

units. 

V 2 ) ORF  assets  be  issued  to  Reserve  Component  units  norma; ly  only  when 
mobil izeu . 

(3)  The  use  of  ORF  by  Reserve  Component  units  during  peacetime  be 
approved  by  HyDA  (DALO-SMD)  on  an  exception  basis  when  adequate  justification 
is  submitted.  ORF  requests  for  ARNG  units  should  also  be  approved  by  the 
National  Guard  Bureau  (NGB) . 

(4)  That  AR  750-1  be  changed  to  incorporate  these  recommendations. 

9-5 . DATA  NEEDED  TO  UPDATE  ORF  FACTORS  (CHAPTER  5). 

a . C onclusion.s  . 

(1)  The  ORF  factors  in  SB  710-1-1  (wartime  factors  developed  by  the 
respective  commodity  commands)  and  the  methodology  used  to  compute  ORF  • • ; ili- 
zntion  requirements  appear  to  be  valid. 

(2)  Compliance  with  regulatory  guidelines  for  selecting  items  to  be 
supported  by  ORF  and  the  updating  of  ORF  factors  provide  the  primary  means  tc 
let  ermine  accurate  and  current  ORF  f actors.  Regulatory  provisions  are  aug- 
ncnted  by  actions  taken  by  some  MACOMs  to  assist  and  influence  the  methodology 
eor  computing  and  refining  ORF  factors.  However,  updating  ORF  factors  for 
iters  in  the  operational  inventory  every  2 years  appears  to  be  excessive  for 
most  items. 

(3)  A standardized  annual  MACOM  ORF  Status  and  Utilization  Report  is 
needed  to  improve  the  management  of  ORF  assets. 

b.  Recommendations. 


(1)  Continue  the  current  methodology  for  computing  orf  factors  for  new 
iters  and  reviewing  the  factors  at  the  end  of  2 years. 


(2)  Continue  to  publish  ORF  factors  in  SB  710-1-1. 

(3)  Delete  the  requirement  to  review  ORF  factors  every  2 years  from  AR 
750-1  and  substitute  the  following  therefor: 

"(a)  Maintenance  float  factors  initially  established  for  new  items  or 
items  that  have  been  in  the  operational  inventory  for  less  than  2 years  will 
be  reviewed  after  the  items  have  been  deployed  for  a period  of  2 years. 
Thereafter,  these  factors  will  be  reviewed  when: 

1 The  availability  rates  for  the  equipment,  worldwide  or  specific 
major  command,  as  reflected  in  DA  level  materiel  readiness  reports  for  three 
reporting  periods,  show  a deviation  from  the  DA  standard  of  5 percent  or  more. 

2^  A Maintenance  and  Repair  Parts  Consumption  Planning  Guide  for 
Contingency  Operations  is  prepared. 

(b)  Data  to  review  ORF  factors  will  be  obtained  from: 

1 Controlled  Sample  Data  Collection  (SDC)  Programs  as  prescribed  in 
AR  750-37  (paragraph  G-2g)  which  are  generally  initiated  for  new’  items  of 
equipment. 

2 Red  Team/System  Assessment  Programs  that  DARCOM  commodity  commands 
conduct  to  assess  and  evaluate  total  performance  of  selected  fielded  systems." 

(4)  If  the  RCF  study,  scheduled  for  completion  in  June  1977,  interposes 
no  objections,  AR  750-1  be  changed  to  require  that  the  "ORF  Status  and  Utili- 
zation Report"  in  appendix  B be  prepared  annually  for  use  by: 

(a)  MACOMs  to  manage  their  peacetime  ORF  assets. 

(b)  The  respective  commodity  commands  for  use  in  editing  ORF 
requisitions . 

(c)  ilQDA  (DALu-SMD)  as  a management  tool  in  distributing  assets. 

9-6.  ADEQUACY  OF  ORF  REQUIREMENT  IN  REFLECTING  REAL  NEEDS  AND  NOT  POOR  SUPPLY 
AND  MAINTENANCE  PROCEDURES  (CHAPTER  6) . 

a.  Conclusions. 


(1)  \R  750-1  should  be  revised  to  require  that  MACOMs  insure  that 
maintenance  and  supply  activities  meet  the  logistic  objectives  stated  in  the 
performance  measures  prescribed  in  chapter  7,  AR  710-2,  and  the  DA  message 
cited  in  paragraph  6-ld,  prior  to  requesting  increased  ORF  authorizations. 

(2)  Development  of  additional  maintenance  performance  measures  as  indi- 
cated in  cited  DA  message  will  contribute  valuable  data  to  bring  management  of 
ORF  under  control. 

(3)  All  TMs  should  include  "standard  staff-hours"  for  use  in  computing 
the  efficiency  rates  (ERs)  performance  measurement.  AVSCOM's  flat-rate 
manuals  for  the  AII-1G,  OH-58A,  CH-47A  and  L'H-111  can  be  used  as  models  for  this 
purpose. 


9-3 


b. 


Recommendations . 


(1)  That  AR  750-1  be  revised  to  require  that  MACOMs  insure  that  their 
maintenance  and  supply  activities  meet  the  logistic  objectives  stated  in  the 
performance  measures  prescribed  in  chapter  7,  AR  710-2,  and  L)A  message  301500Z 
jul  76,  prior  to  approving  increased  ORF  authorizations. 

(2)  That  action  to  develop  the  additional  performance  measures  as  indi- 
cated in  paragraph  6-ld(2)  be  initiated. 

(3)  That  all  TMs  not  containing  "standard  staff-hours"  be  rewritten  ex- 
peditiously to  include  them  for  use  in  computing  efficiency  rates  (ERs) . 

9-7.  LOCATION (S)  OF  ORF  STOCKAGE  IN  CONUS  AND  OCONUS  (CHAPTER  7). 

a . Conclusions ■ 

(1)  In  CONUS,  the  ORF  should  be  located  at  the  installation  level, 
except  in  those  cases  which  can  be  justified  to  the  MACOM  commander  to  position 
it  at  the  division  DSU  level. 

(2)  In  OCONUS,  the  demand  supported  ORF  should  normally  be  positioned 
at  the  OS  level  for  enhanced  control  and  improved  support.  Selected  items 
should  be  justified,  on  an  exception  basis,  to  the  theater  commander  to  Lie 
positioned  at  the  DSU  level. 

(3)  The  cheater  commander  should  also  be  authorized  to  position  non- 
demand  supported  ORF  at.  either  GSU  or  war  reserve  sites. 

b.  Recommendat ions . AR  753-1  be  changed  to  permit: 

(1)  ORF  to  be  positioned  at  CONUS  division  DSU  sites  in  those  rases 
where  the  action  can  be  justified  to,  and  approved  by  the  MACON  commander. 

(2)  OCONUS  ORF  be  positioned  at  DSU,  GSU  or  war  reserve  sites  at  the 
discretion  of  the  theater  commander. 


9-8.  ADEQUACY  OF  DA  ORF  GUIDANCE  (CHAPTER  8). 


a.  Conclusions. 


(1) 

regard ing 
should  be 


Conflictm;  and  incomplete  statements  in  ARs  11-11  and  700-120, 
the  author i zat ion  of  ORF  support  for  Reserve  Component  units, 
corrected . 


(2)  The  proposed  revision  of  AR  "50-1  should  include  the  changes  recom- 
mended in  chapters  3,  4,  5,  6,  and  7 of  this  review. 

b . Recommend, i 1. 1'  ns  . 

',1)  Revise  AR  11-11,  paragraph  2-lb  (3),  to  read: 

"Operational  readiness  float  is  authorized  for  procurement  and 
distribution  to-- 


(a)  CONUS  installations  for  the  support  of  both  Active  Army  and  Army 
Reserve  units  (aircraft  and  aircraft  related  items  only  stationed  on  or  sup- 
ported by  these  installations. 


9-4 


(b)  US  property  and  fiscal  officers  of  the  several  State  entitles  for 
support  of  the  Army  National  Guard  while  in  an  inactive  ( nonmobi 1 1 zed ) status 
(aircraft  and  aircraft  related  items  only)." 

(2)  Revise  AR  700-120,  paragraph  2-5,  to  read: 

"The  Reserve  Components  are  not  authorized  ‘ >Pf  support  until  mobi- 
lized (except  for  aircraft  and  aircraft  related  items).  RF  for  aircraft  and 
aircraft  related  items  will  be  computed  against  the  Required  column  of  MTOE 
for  all  commands,  Active  and  Reserve." 

(3)  The  proposed  revision  of  AR  750-1  includes  the  changes  recommended 
in  chapters  3,  4,  5,  6,  and  7 of  this  review. 


i 


APPENDIX  A 


CONSOLIDATED  DCSLOC  TASKING  DIRECTIVE  TO  USALEA 

1.  TITLE : Review  Operational  Readiness  Float  Concept. 

2.  Froject  Identification  Number:  Z60144. 

3.  PURPOSE:  To  review  operational  readiness  float  policy  and  validate  authorization  criteria 

for  Active  Army,  Reserve  and  National  Guard  units. 

4.  IOGMAP  OBJECTIVE:  Improve  the  Maintenance  Management  Policy  of  Army  materiel. 

5.  BACKGROUND/DESCRIPTION: 

a.  References. 

(1)  CSM  74-5-73,  Resources  for  a 16  Division  Active  Army  (Project  16-78),  13  Aug  1974  (S) . 

(2)  Task  Directive  (Project  16-78  (Ftsources  for  a 16  Division  Active  Army))  DCSIOC, 

HQDA,  27  Aug  1974  (FOUO) . 

(3)  AR  5-5,  The  Army  Study  System. 

(4)  AR  22C-1,  Unit  Readiness  Reporting. 

(5)  AR  70(  -170,  Materiel  Distribution  Management. 

(6)  AR  710- ; , Materiel  Management  for  Using  Units,  Support  Units  and  Installations. 

(7)  AR  75C-1,  Army  Materiel  Maintenance  Concepts  and  Pclicies. 

(R)  AF  750-6.,  Equipment  Operationally  Ready  Standards. 

(9)  TM  !8-75U,  The  Army  Maintenance  Management  System  (TAMMS) . 

(10)  ' SAAA  Audit  Report  NT  76-214,  26  March  1976,  "Maintenance  Float  and  Direct  Exchange." 

(11)  Draft  C AO  Report,  947216- LDC-76-442  (MM-195)  , 10  Sep  76,  "Spare  Equipment  at  Army- 
Maintenance  Activities  tc  Maintain  Operational  Readiness." 

b.  Sponsor.  Deputy  Chief  of  Staff  for  logistics,  Headquarters,  Department  of  the  Army. 

c.  Study  Agency.  US  A.rmy  logistics  Evaluation  Agency  will  conduct  the  study  according 
to  guidance  contained  herein  or  modified  in  process,  by  the  study  sponsor. 

d.  Courses  of  Action/Technical  Approaches. 

(1)  Problem.  To  review  operational  readiness  float  p-olicy  and  validate  or  recommend 
changes  tc  pol  icp  to  improve  the  manaqenent  of  operational  readiness  float  supp'ort. 

(2)  Objective.  To  determine  - 

(a)  F.ffe-ctive  criteria  for  the  selection  of  items  and  units  ‘■o  1 e provided  operational 


readiness  float  support. 

(b)  Procedures  for  computing  valid  requirements  for  operational  readiness  float. 


APPENDIX  A (Cont) 


(3)  Scope.  The  project  will  evaluate  (a)  current  policy  and  procedures  relative  to 
selection  criteria  for  items  and  units  to  be  provided  operational  readiness  float  support  and 
the  computation  of  operational  readiness  float  requirements;  (b)  CAO  and  USAAA  proposals  with 
respect  to  these  policies  and  procedures;  and  develop  new  or  recommended  changes  in  policies 
and  procedures  to  improve  the  management  of  operational  readiness  float  support. 

(4)  Time  Frame.  1976-1981. 

(5)  Limits. 

(a)  Only  selected  Class  VII  items  listed  in  Appendix  C,  TM  38-750  for  Materiel  Readiness 
reporting  will  be  included  in  the  study. 

(b)  Fixed  communication  - electronic  equipment  operated  and  maintained  by  the  US  Army  - 
Communications  Command  and  the  Army  Security  Agency;  Army  Aircraft,  and  Medical  Materiel  will 
be  excluded  from  the  study. 

(c)  Peacetime  float  usage  will  not  be  the  sole  basis  for  establishing  criteria. 

(6)  Assumptions. 

(a)  End  items  will  be  available  for  stockage  in  the  quantities  required  as  dete ruined  by 
the  study. 

(b)  Criteria  for  selection  may  vary  by  commodity  type. 

(c)  Criteria  for  stockage  may  vary  among  CONUS  and  OCONUS  commands. 

(d)  Criteria  for  stockage  will  be  based  on  wartime  use. 

(7)  Essential  Elements  of  Analysis. 

(a)  What  changes  are  needed  in  the  criteria  for  the  selection  of  items  to  be  provided 
OPE  support  to  insure  adequate  consideration  of  the  impact  of  such  support  on  equipmtnt 
readiness? 

(b)  Should  operational  readiness  float  support  for  General  Support  forces  be  reduced  or 
eliminated?  If  yes,  identify  units  for  reduction  or  deletion. 

(c)  Is  operational  readiness  float  required  for  support  of  USAP.  and  NC,  units?  If  yes, 
at  what  level? 

(d)  Are  equipment  operationally  ready  standards  in  AP  750-52  adequate? 

(e)  What  type  data  is  needed  frr  the  computation  and  periodic  update  of  valid  wartime  OPE 
requirements,  and  what  is  its  availability?  How  can  availability  be  improved? 

(f)  What  changes  are  needed  in  procedures  for  computing  OPE  requirements  to  insure  that 
these  requirements  reflect  real  needs  and  are  not  a substitute  for  good  supply  and  maintenance 
practices? 

(g)  At  what  level  should  operational  readiness  float  be  stocked  in  CONUS  and  OCONUS 
commands? 

(h)  Is  current  Department  of  the  Army  guidance  for  maintenance  float  policy  adequate? 

If  not,  what  changes  are  required? 


6.  ADMINISTRATIVE  DETAILS. 

a.  Required  date.  The  evaluation  of  GAO  proposals  (ref  para  5a(ll))  will  be-  completed 
by  18  October  1976. 

b.  LSAIEA  will  use  its  existing  capabilities  and  resources  in  accomplishing  the  evalua- 
tion. 

c.  The  Directorate  for  Supply  and  Maintenance,  ODCSLOG,  HQDA,  is  the  proponent  for  this 
evaluation.  All  correspondence  between  USALEA  and  the  proponent  will  be  routed  through  Field 
Services  Branch. 

d.  Direct  coordination  with  all  major  commands;  e.g.,  Hf  USAREUR,  FORSCOM,  AMC,  etc.,  ir 
author ized . 

e.  L’SAIEA  will  precare  a study  plan  to  include  a milestone  schedule  within  30  days  of 
date  of  this  directive  for  approval  by  the  study  sponsor. 

f.  Trogress  reports  will  be  submitted  monthly  after  approval  of  the  study  plan. 

g.  Final  dralt  report  will  be  submitted  tc  the  project  proponent  NLT  1 Nov  76. 


APPENDIX  A (Cont) 


! DISPOSITION 

FORM 

| for  ua«  of  «hl«  lem,  •••  AR  340*13,  proponent  og«ncy  !■  TAGCEN.  5 

REFERENCE  OR  0*EICE  St*80L 

[ SobiECT 

Review  Operational  Readiness  Float  Concept  (Project 

DALO-SMM-F 

I HAP , Issue  #153) 

!TO1  HRU : D/LPOS 

TO:  CDR,  LFA 


FROM 


DALO-SMZ 


DATE  29  Jan  1976  CMT  I 
I.TC  Burke/f f/71343 


Request  you  take  action  to  com.|  lete  tlie  project  described  below: 

1.  T1TLF : Review  Operational  Reaainess  Float  Concept. 

2.  Project  Identification  Number:  Project  LEAP,  Issue  #153. 

3.  PURPOSE:  To  identify  resource  savings  - men,  money,  and  materiel  - to  aid  in 

streamlining  the  US  Army  logistic  system  and  improve  readiness. 

4.  I.OCMAP  Objective:  Tmt  rove  the  Maintenance  Management  Policy  of  Army  materiel. 

5.  Rackground/Description: 

a.  References: 

(1)  CSM  78-5-73,  Resources  for  a 16  Division  Active  Army  (Project  16-78), 

13  Aug  1974  (S) . 

(?)  Task  Directive  (Project  16-78  (Resources  for  a 16  Division  Active  Army)) 

DCS I.OG,  HQDA,  27  Aug  1974  (FOUO)  . 

(3)  AP  5-5,  The  Army  Study  System. 

(4)  AR  220-1,  Unit  Readiness  Reporting. 

(5)  AR  7C0-120,  Materiel  Distribution  Management. 

(6)  AF.  71C-2 , Materiel  Management  for  Using  Units,  Support  Units  and  Installations 

(7)  AP  ■’50-1,  Army  Materiel  Maintenance  Concepts  and  Policies. 

(8)  AR  ”50-52,  Equipment  Cp erationally  Ready  Standards. 

(9)  TM  38-750,  The  Army  Maintenance  Management  System.  (TAMMS)  . 

b.  SPONSOR:  Deputy  Chief  of  Staff  for  logistics,  Headquarters,  Department  cf  the 

Army. 

c.  STUDY  AGENCY:  US  Army  Logistics  Evaluation  Agency  will  conduct  the  study 

according  to  guidance  contained  herein  or  modified  in  process  by  the  study  sponsor. 


DA  '.°,r  2496 


REPLACES  OD  E OR  M U,  WHICH  IS  OBSOLETE 


OGPO  1976-665  422  1061 


4 


APPENDIX  A (Cont) 


DALO-SMM-F  29  Jan  197* 

SUBJECT:  Review  Operational  Readiness  Float  Concept  (Project  LEAP,  Issue  #153) 

d.  Courses  of  Action/Technical  Approaches. 

(1)  PROBLEM:  To  review  operational  readiness  float  policy  and  validate  authorization 

criteria. 

(2)  OBJECTIVE:  To  determine  the  most  effective  criteria  for: 

(a)  Selection  of  items  to  be  provided  operational  readiness  float  support. 

(b)  Establishment  of  levels  of  operational  readiness  float  stockage  by  Active  Army, 
Reserve,  and  National  Guard  units. 

(3)  SCOPE:  The  study  will  evaluate  criteria  for  (a)  selection  of  end  items  for  opera- 

tional readiness  float  support  and  (b)  establishment  of  operational  readiness  float  levels: 
determine  the  manpower  and  materiel  costs  of  current  programs;  and  develop  criteria  for  item 
selection  and  stockage  based  on  equipment  reliability  which  will  assure  operational  readiness 
of  Army  units  in  the  most  economical  manner. 

(4)  TIME  FRAME:  1976-1981 

(5)  LIMITS: 

(a)  Only  selected  Class  VII  items  listed  in  Appendix  C,  TM  38-750  for  Materiel  Readiness 
reporting  will  be  included  in  the  study. 

(b)  Fixed  communications  - electronic  equipment  operated  ar.d  maintained  by  the  US  Army 
Communications  Command  and  the  Army  Security  Agency,  as  well  as  medical  materiel,  will  b< 
excluded  from  the  study. 

(c)  Peacetime  float  usage  will  not  be  the  sole  basis  for  establishing  criteria. 

(6)  ASSUMPTIONS: 

(a)  End  items  will  be  available  for  stockage  in  the  quantities  required  as  determined  by 
the  study. 

(b)  Criteria  for  selection  may  vary  by  commodity  type. 

(c)  Criteria  for  stcvkage  may  vary  among  CONUS  and  OCONUS  commands. 

(d)  Criteria  for  stockage  will  be  based  on  wartime  use. 

(7)  ESSENTIAL  ELEMENTS  OF  ANALYSIS: 

(a)  Is  current  Department  of  the  Army  guidance  for  maintenance  float  policy  adequate? 

If  not,  what  changes  are  required? 

(b)  At  what  level  should  operational  readiness  float  be  stocked  in  CONUS  commands? 

(c)  At  what  level  should  operational  readiness  float  be  stocked  in  OCONUS  commands? 

(d)  Is  operational  readiness  float  required  for  supipx>rt  of  USAF  and  NG  units?  If  yes, 
at  what  level? 


A-  5 


APPENDIX  A (Cont) 


(e)  Should  operational  readiness  float  support  for  General  Support  forces  be  reduced  or 
eliminated?  If  yes,  identify  units  for  reduction  or  deletion. 

(f)  What  type  of  data  is  needed  for  periodic  update  of  ORF  factors,  and  what  is  its 
availability? 

6.  ADMINISTRATIVE  DETAILS 

a.  Required  date.  The  evaluation  will  be  completed  by  30  September  1976. 

b.  USAIEA  will  use  its  existing  capabilities  and  resources  in  accomplishing  the  evaluation. 

c.  The  Directorate  for  Supply  and  Maintenance,  ODCSLOG,  HQDA , is  the  proponent  for  this 
evaluation.  All  correspondence  between  USALEA  and  the  proponent  will  be  routed  through  Field 
Services  Branch. 

d.  Direct  coordination  with  all  Major  Commands,  e.g.,  HQUSAREUR,  FORSCOM,  AMC , etc,  is 
authorized. 

e.  USALEA  will  prepare  a study  plan  to  include  a milestone  schedule  within  30  days  cf 
date  of  this  directive  for  approval  by  the  study  sponsor. 

f.  Progress  reports  will  be  submitted  monthly  after  approval  of  the  study  plan. 

g.  Final  report  will  be  submitted  tc  the  study  proponent  NLT  11  October  197f . 

FCP  THE  DEPUTY  CHIEF  OF  STAFF  FOR  LOGISTICS: 


/s/  R.  H.  Thompson 

RICHARD  H.  THOMPSON 
Major  General,  GS 
Director  of  Supply 
and  Maintenance 


APPENDIX  A (Cont) 


DALO-LEZ-A  (29  Jan  76) 

SUBJECT:  Review  Operational  Readiness  Float  Concept 

THRU  DALO-SMM-F  FROM  USALEA 

TO  DALO-SMZ 


(Project  LEAP,  Issue  #153) 

DATE  16  Mar  76  CMT  2 

Mr  Graham/rms/600fi 


1.  As  requested  in  paragraph  6e , Comment  1,  attached  at  inclosure  1 is  the  proposed  study 
plan  including  milestones  for  conduct  of  subject  project.  The  delay  in  submission  of  the 
study  plan  was  mutually  agreed  to  by  the  Chief,  DAIO-SMM-F  and  Mr.  J.  Graham,  LEA  during  a 
telephone  discussion  concerning  the  project. 

2.  The  status  of  the  project  and  proposed  plan  was  briefed  to  MG  Thompson  on  11  Marc!)  1976 
during  his  visit  to  LEA.  At  that  time,  MG  Thompson  expressed  two  concerns: 

a.  The  number  of  man-months  of  effort  required  and  the  total  time  to  do  the  iroject. 

b.  The  use  of  Appendix  C,  TM  38-750  as  a baseline  for  selecting  equipment  to  be  included 
in  the  study. 

MG  Thompson  was  informed  that  LEA  would  take  a closer  look  at  both  areas. 

3.  Recommend  that  the  study  plan  be  approved.  If  necessary,  adjustments  to  time  frame  or 
project  content  can  be  made  during  PAG  IFF. 


1 Inc) 

as  (6  cofies) 


signed 

JAMES  L.  HUDSON 
Colonel,  OS 
Commanding 


DALO-SMM-F  (29  Jan  76) 

SUBJECT:  Review  Operational  Readiness  Float  Concept  (Project  LEAP,  Issue  #153) 

TO  USALEA  FROM  DALO-SMZ  DATE  27  Apr  1976  CMT  3 

Mr  Wilson/f f/55546 

Revised  project  plan,  forwarded  to  H£DA  (DALO-SMM-F)  informally,  20  April  1976,  is 
approved.  Covet  page  of  the  revised  plan  should  be  amended  to  indicate  the  date  of 
revision. 

FOP  THE  DEPUTY  CHIEF  OF  STAFF  FOP  LOGISTICS: 


/S/  P . H . Thompson 

wd  all  incl  RICHARD  H.  THOMPSON 

Major  General,  GS 
Director  of  Supply 
and  Maintenance 


A- 7 


APPENDIX  A (Cont) 


DALO-SMM-F  Review  Operational  Readiness  Float  Concept  (Project 

LEAP,  ISSUE  #153) 

XXTHRU:  DALO-RDZ-A  FROM  DALO-SMZ-A  DATE  5 Oct  1976  CRT  1 

TO:  CDR,  LEA  Mr.  Wilson/wc/55546 

1.  Reference  is  made  to  DF,  DALO-SMM-F,  29  Jan  76,  SAB. 

2.  Referenced  DF  is  amended  as  follows: 

a.  Paraqraph  3.  Change  to  read  as  follows:  PURPOSE:  To  review  operational  readi- 

ness float  policy  and  validate  authorization  criteria  for  Active  Army,  Reserve  and 
National  Guard  Units. 

b.  Paraqraph  5a.  Add  the  following  references: 

(10)  USAAA  Audit  Report  NT  "'6-214,  26  March  1976  , "Maintenance  Float  and  Tirect  Exchange 

(11)  Draft  GAO  Report,  947216-LDC-76-442  (MM-195),  10  Sep  76,  "Spare  Equipment  at  Army 
Maintenance  Activities  to  Maintain  Operational  Readiness." 

c.  Paragraph  5d.  Change  subparaqraphs  as  indicated: 

(1)  PROBI£M:  To  review  operational  readiness  float  policy  and  validate  or  recommend 

chanqes  to  policy  to  improve  the  management  of  operational  readiness  float  support. 

(2)  OBJECTIVE:  To  determine  - 

(a)  Effective  criteria  for  the  selection  of  items  anc  units  to  be  provided  operational 
readiness  float  support. 

(b)  Procedures  for  computing  valid  requirements  for  operational  readiness  float. 

(3)  SCOPE:  The  project  will  evaluate  (a)  current  policy  and  procedures  relative  to 

selection  criteria  for  items  and  units  to  be  provided  operational  readiness  float  support 
and  the  computation  f operational  readiness  float  requirements;  (b)  CAC  and  USAAA 
proposals  with  xespect  t<  these  policies  and  procedures;  and  develop  r ew  or  recommended 
change  in  rolicies  and  procedures  to  improve  the  management  of  operational  readiness 
float  support. 

(5)  I IM1TS: 

(b)  ’ : communication  - electronic  equipment  operated  and  maintained  by  the  US 

Army  - miminicat  i on : mmard  and  the  Army  Security  Agency;  Army  Aircraft,  and  Medical 

‘"ateriel  will  be  excluder  from  the  study. 

(7)  p "iti.il  Elements  or  Analysis:  Change  subparagraph  (f)  and  add  subparagraphs 

(q)  and  (h)  as  follows; 

(f)  What  type  data  is  needed  for  the  computation  and  periodic  update  of  valid  wartime 
'■RE  requirements,  and  what  is  its  availability?  How  can  availability  be  improved? 

(g)  What  changes  are  needed  in  procedures  for  computing  ORE  requirements  to  insure 
that  these  requirements  reflect  real  needs  and  are  not  a substitute  for  good  supply  ar.d 
maintenance  practices? 

(h)  What  changes  are  needed  in  the  criteria  for  the  selection  of  items  to  be  provided 
OPF  support  to  insure  adequate  consideration  of  the  impact  of  such  support  on  equipment 
readiness? 


« 

APPENDIX  A (Cont) 

CALO-SMM-F 

SUBJECT:  Review  Operational  Readiness  Float  Concept  (Project  LEAP,  ISSUE  #153) 


d.  Paragraph  6a.  Change  tc  read:  "Required  date.  The  evaluation  of  GAO  proposals 
(ref  para  5a  (ID)  will  be  completed  by  18  October  1976. 


e. 

project 


Paragraph 

proponent 


6g.  Change  to  read: 
NLT  1 Nov  76. 


"Final  Draft  report  will  be  submitted  to  the 


/S/  R.  H.  Thompson 
RICHARD  H.  THOMPSON 
Major  General,  GS 

Director  of  Supply  and  Maintenance 


A- 9 


(A-10  Blank) 


APPENDIX  B 


ORF  STATUS  AND  UTILIZATION  REPORT 


B-l . GENERAL.  Letter,  PRXMD-KS , 24  November  1976 , subject:  ORF  of  Army 

Equipment,  recommended  that  the  CPF  Status  and  Utilization  Report  (fig  B-l  L< 
prepared  annually  by  each  MACON.  It  is  basically  the  form  now  used  by  FOFSCCfi 
but  has  been  changed  to  reflect  other  commands'  requirements.  Costing  data  has 
been  eliminated  as  unnecessary  tc  fulfill  ORF  management  requirements  at  flu 
major  command  level.  NICP  personnel  can  retrieve  cost  data  f ror  files  when 
desired . 

P-2 . INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  PREPARATION  OF  ORF  STATUS  AND  UTILIZATION  REPORT. 

a.  LIME  column  - Inter  number  of  the  transaction:  e.g.,  enter  a "3"  if  it 
is  the  third  I, IN  on  the  sheet. 

b.  Column  a - Enter  LIN  and  MSN  for  each  item  in  CP.F  or  authorized  as  OFF. 

c.  Column  b - Enter  nomenclature  and  model;  e.q.,  tank,  M60A1,  in  accord- 
ance with  SB  700-20. 

d.  column  c - Enter  total  quantity  of  the  item  supported  by  the  command/ 
installation;  exclude  float  ir.d  war  reserve. 

e.  Column  d - Enter  total  at  proved  OFT  based  on  last  report . 

f_.  Column  e - 1 1 : ■ t • ■ r ORF  factor  computed  from  SB  710-1-1  or  AP  750-1  ii.lt  t- 

rat  in;.  Use  of  AR  750-1,  appendix  L,  for  computations  of  OFT  factor  will  b< 
indicated  by  an  asterisk. 

. Column  f - Enter  total  quantity  of  the  iter:  that  is  ir  ORF  resent  . 

h.  Column  g - Enter  total  demands  for  the  float  item  for  the  reportin 

12-month  period.  Ir  cor pv ting  demands,  all  items  qualifying  for  float  »*>-ch.T-  • 
in  accordance  with  paragraph  7-9,  AR  750-1,  will  be  counted  as  demands. 

i.  Column  h - Enter  total  number  of  times  ORF  stock  was  issued  fer  tit 
12-month  rep'ort  period. 

i.  Column  i - Enter  the  percentage  cf  demands  that  were  filled  frer 
authorized  ORF  (col  h - col  g X 100) . 

k.  Column  j - Enter  average  monthly  demands  (col  r.  f 12). 

l.  Column  k - Fnter  average  turnaround  time  in  months  (tetal  time  beg  innit  <: 
v *th  receipt  of  unscrviecal  li  item  and  ending  with  return  t<  C'PF  stock)  . 

Figures  in  this  column  should  be  submitted  in  months  or  portions  thereof. 

m.  Column  1 - Fr.tex  quartity  needed  in  OFT  based  upon  demands  ard  avera  *r 
turnaround  time  (col  j X col  k). 

a.  Column  it  - Enter  excess  items  (equal  to  col  d minus  col  1). 


Column  n - Fr.ter  appropriat*  remarks  such  as  requisition  number  for  OFT 
shortages,  actual  number  of  months  Item  was  in  the  float,  < tc.  Entries  in 
remarks  column  will  be  keyed  tr  applicable  line  entries  above. 


APPENDIX  C 


REFERENCES 


DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE  PI RECT1VES  AND  I NSTRUCTI ONS  (DODI) 

DODI  4000.19,  Basic  Policies  and  Principles  for  Interservice,  Interdepart- 
mental, and  Interagency  Support,  27  November  1972. 

DODI  4140.42,  Determination  of  Initial  Requirements  for  Secondary  Item  Spare 
and  Repair  Parts,  7 August  1974. 


ARMY  CHIEF  OF  STAFF  MEMORANDUM 

CSM  75-5-73,  Resources  for  a 16  Division  Active  Army  (Project  16-78),  13  August 
1974  (S) . 


ARMY  REGU ILATI ON  S 

AR  1-1,  Planning,  Programming,  and  Budgeting  Within  the  DA,  25  May  1976. 

AR  1-35,  Administration,  Basic  Policies,  and  Principles  for  Interservice , 
Interdepartmental,  and  Interagency  Support,  29  June  1973. 

AR  5-5,  The  Army  Study  System,  26  June  1974. 

AR  5-8,  Host-Supported  Activity  Relationship  (Interservice),  15  January  1974. 

AR  5-9,  Management,  Intraservice  Support,  Installation  Area  Coordination, 

1 October  1975. 

AR  11-11,  Army  Programs,  Major  Command  Stockage  Levels  Worldwide  (U)  , 18  Nay 
1975. 

AR  71-3,  Force  Development  User  Testing,  17  March  1975. 

AR  130-400,  Army  National  Guard,  Logistical  Policies  for  Support,  9 December 
1971. 

AR  140-15,  Army  Reserve,  Maintenance  of  Equipment,  3 February  1973. 

AR  220-1,  Unit  Readiness  Reporting,  17  March  1975. 

AR  700-120,  Materiel  Distribution  Management,  14  March  1974. 

AR  710-2,  Materiel  Management  for  Using  Units,  Support  Units,  and  Installations, 
1 August  1971. 

AR  710-3,  Asset  and  Transaction  Reporting  System,  18  September  1972. 

AR  710-60,  Standard  Study  Number  System  and  Replacement  Factors,  1 March  1973. 

AR  750-1,  Army  Materiel  Maintenance,  Concepts,  and  Policies,  1 May  1972. 

AR  750-4,  Maintenance  of  Supplies  and  Equipment,  2 June  1976. 


R 


c-i 


AR  750-7,  Maintenance  of  Supplies  and  Equipment,  Installation  Support  Mainte- 
nance Activities,  27  May  1976. 

AR  750-37,  Sample  Data  Collection,  The  Army  Maintenance  Management  System 
(TAMMS),  24  March  1971. 

AR  750-52,  Equipment  Operationally  Ready  Standards,  20  September  1973. 


SUPPLEMENTS  TO  ARMY  REGULATIONS 

USAREUR  Supplement  1 to  AR  750-1,  Maintenance  of  Supplies  and  Equipment, 
18  March  1976. 

FORSCOM  Supplement  1 to  AR  750-1,  Maintenance  of  Supplies  and  Equipment, 
2 November  1973. 

TRADOC  Supplement  1 to  AR  750-1,  Maintenance  of  Supplies  and  Equipment, 
20  November  1974. 


DA  MESSAGE 

DAMO-RQD,  231845Z  Apr  76,  subject:  FY  78  POM  Aircraft  IIQs/AAOs  and  ORF,  RCF , 

PTRF  Rates. 

DALO-SMM-F,  311500Z  Jul  76,  subject:  Materiel  Maintenance  Performance  Measures. 


DA  DEPUTY  CHIEF  OF  STAFF  FOR  RESEARCH,  DEVELOPMENT,  AND  ACQUISITION 
Procurement,  Planning,  and  Policy  Guidance,  1 December  1975. 


IG  - AAA  AUDIT  REPORTS 


IGAA-SOD,  14  November  1974,  subject:  Audit  of  Maintenance  Float,  US  Army 

Missile  Command,  Audit  Report  SO  75-19. 

AAA  Audit  Report  SO  75-26,  9 January  1975,  subject:  ORF,  US  Army  Infantry 

Center,  Fort  Benning,  GA. 

AAA  Audit  Report  MV/  75-51,  21  March  1975,  subject:  ORF  Equipment  III  Corps 

and  Fort  Hood,  TX. 

AAA  Audit  Report  NE  75-54,  28  April  1975,  subject:  Commodity  Command  Func- 

tional Audit,  Maintenance  Float  and  Direct  Exchange,  US  Army  Tank  Automotive 
Command,  Warren,  MI. 

AAA.  Audit  Report  NE  75-68,  30  June  1975,  Maintenance  Float,  US  Army  Electronics 
Command,  Fort  Monmouth,  NJ. 

AAA  Audit  Report  NE  76-214,  26  March  1976,  subject:  Maintenance  Float  and 

Direct  Exchange. 


USOAO  REPORTS 

USGAO  Draft  Report  947216-LCD-76-442  (MAI-195),  10  September  1976,  subject: 
Improvements  Needed  in  Computing  the  Requirements  for  Spjare  Equipment  at  Army 
Maintenance  Activities  to  Maintain  Operational  Readiness. 


C-2 


USGAO  Report,  LCD-76-442,  5 April  1977,  subject:  Better  Management  of  Spare 

Equipment  Will  Improve  Maintenance  Productivity  and  Save  the  Army  Millions. 

STUDIES,  EVALUAT I ONS_  AND  TASKING  DIRECTIVES 

USAMMC  Study,  April  1976,  subject:  A Study  to  Determine  the  Cost  Impact  of 

Maintenance  Floats. 

USAOC&S  Study,  December  1975,  subject:  Maintenance  Standards  Study. 

USAM&MC&S , April  1976,  subject:  Missile  and  Munitions  Evaluation  (MAME-74/75) 

Final  Report. 

Letter,  DRC'MM-MS , 28  Jun  1976,  subject:  ORF  of  Army  Equipment. 

Letter,  DRCMM-M , 1 September  1976,  subject:  ORF  of  Army  Equipment. 

Letter,  DRXMD-MS , 20  Se[  tenber  197f,  subject:  ORF  of  Army  Equipment. 

Letter,  DRXMD-MS,  24  Novt mb<  r 1976,  subject:  ORF  of  Army  Equipment. 

MILITARY  SPECIF  I CAT1 ONE 

MIL-M-6 3000C (TM) , Amendment  1,  1 September  1971,  subject:  Technical  Manuals: 

General  Requirements  for  Manuscripts. 

US  ARMY  FIELD  MANUALS 

FM  29-25  Direct  Exchange,  Shop  Supply,  and  Operational  Readiness  Float  Proce- 
dures, March  1972. 

US  ARMY  TECHNICAL  MANUALS 

TM  38-750,  The  Army  Maintenance  Management  System  (TAMMS),  21  November  ln72. 
DEPARTMENT  OF  ThE  ARMY  SUPPLY  BULLETINS 

SB  710-1-1,  Standard  Study  No.  (SSK)  Master  File  Cross  Reference  Index,  April 
1976. 

SB  700-20,  Army  Adopted/Other  Item  Selected  for  Authorization/List  of  Report- 
able Items,  January  1976. 

ARMY  NATIONAL  GUARD  REGULATIONS  AND  PUBLICATIONS 

NGR  350-1,  Army  National  Guard,  Training,  31  October  1975. 

NCR  750-1,  Army  National  Guard,  Maintenance  of  Supplies  and  Equipment,  1 July 
1969. 


C-3 


HEADQUARTERS  US  ARMY  MATERIEL  DEVELOPMENT  AND  READINESS  COMMAND 


Draft  DARCOM  Regulation  702-  , Product  Assurance,  Red  Team/System  Assessment 
Program,  1 June  1976. 


US  ARMY  AVIATION  SYSTEMS  COMMAND  - FLAT  RATE  MANUALS 

Helicopter  Publication  Date 


AH-1G  Volumes  1 and  2 July  1973 

Final  Report  for  Period 

1 July  1970  - 1 July  1974  September  1976 

Volume  1 July  1973 

Final  Report  for  Period 

1 January  1970  - 31  December  1973  March  1976 

CH-47A  Volumes  1 and  2 December  1974 

UH-1H  Volumes  1 and  2 July  1975 


AMC  PAMPHLETS  (AMCP) 

AMCP  750-6,  Maintenance  of  Supplies  and  Fquipment,  Techniques  for  Determining 
Optimal  Operational  Readiness  Float,  June  1971. 

AMCP  750-7,  Techniques  for  Determining  Repair  Cycle  Float,  June  1971. 


JOINT  CHIEF  OF  STAFF  PUBLICATIONS 

JCS  Pub  6,  Volume  II,  Part  2,  Chapter  1,  Joint  Reporting  Structure,  Force 
Status,  and  Identity  Report  (FORSTAT). 


GLOSSARY 


General  Support  Forces.  Units  having  Force  Stratum  Codes  Yl,  Y3,  Z1  and  73  in 
the  Structure  and  Composition  System  (SACS)  Force  listing  used  to  prepare  the 
Army  Materiel  Plan  (AMP) . 

Maintenance  Float.  A quantity  of  selected  end  items  or  major  components  of 
equipment  authorized  fur  replacement  of  like  items  evacuated  from  using 
activities  for  scheduled  depot  maintenance  or  the  performance  of  other  mainte- 
nance operations  which  cannot  be  accomplished  in  a timely  manner.  There  are 
two  types  of  maintenance  float  authorized — operational  readiness  float  (ORF) 
and  repair  cycle  float  (RCF ) . 

Operational  Readiness  Float  (ORF).  A quantity  of  selected  end  items  or 
major  components  of  equipment  authorTzed  for  stockage  at  CONUS  installations 
and  overseas  support  maintenance  activities  to  extend  their  capability  to 
respond  to  the  materiel  readiness  requirements  of  supported  activities.  This 
is  accomplished  by  providing  supported  activities  with  serviceable  replacements 
from  ORF  assets  when  like  items  of  equipment  of  supported  activities  cannot  be 
repaired  or  modified  in  time  to  meet  operational  requirements. 

Repair  Cycle  Float  (RCF) . An  additional  quantity  of  selected  end  items  or 
major  components  of  equipment  approved  for  stockage  in  the  wholesale  sup; ly 
system  to  replace  like  items  of  equipment  withdrawn  from  using  activities  f<  r 
scheduled  depot  maintenance  or,  in  the  case  of  aircraft,  the  depot  maintenance 
of  crash-damaged  equipment.  This  float  is  used  primarily  to  extend  the  ecoi  o' 
service  life  of  selected  items  of  Army  materiel  by  providing  f<  r their  depot 
maintenance  on  a timely  basis  without  detracting  from,  the  materiel  readiness 
of  using  activities.  (As  stated  in  proposed  revision  of  AR  750-1.) 

Maintenance  Significant  Equipment.  An  end  item,  assemblage,  component,  01 
system  proposed  or  intended  for  Issue  to  the  Army  in  the  field,  the  mainte- 
nance support  concept  which  envisions  the  performance  of  corrective  maintenance 
services  on  a recurring  basis. 

Mission-Essential  Materiel . Materiel  authorized  and  assigned  to  approved 
combat  and  combat  support  f rces  which  would  be  immediately  employed  to 
destroy  the  enemy  or  his  capacity  to  continue  war;  provide  battlefield 
protection  of  personnel;  communicate  under  war  conditions;  detect,  locate, 
or  maintain  surveillance  over  the  enemy;  and  permit  contiguous  combat  trans- 
portation and  support  of  men  and  materiel.  Equipment  assigned  to  training 
missions  that  is  of  the  same  type  and  configuration  as  that  assigned  to 
combat  and  combat  support  forces  and  designated  to  be  immediately  employed 
for  the  purposes  enumerated  above  is  also  mission-essential  materiel.